Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Allahabad High Court Declines Protection for Live-In Relationship: 'Life is Not a Bed of Roses'

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition that sought legal protection for a live-in relationship between a young interfaith couple. The Court made it clear that it has reservations about such relationships, stating, "The life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities."

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an FIR dated 17th August 2023 under Section 366 IPC. The young couple sought protection from arrest and quashing of the FIR filed by the woman's aunt. They argued that as adults, they have the right to live together. However, the Court was unconvinced and observed, "It is more of infatuation against opposite sex without any sincerity."

The judgment further clarified that the validity of an FIR does not depend on the relationship of the complainant to the victim. In this case, the FIR was lodged by the young woman's aunt, which the petitioners had contested. "It hardly makes any difference that who has lodged the FIR, whether she is the mother or her aunt," the Court stated.

The Court also expressed concern over the petitioner no. 2's previous criminal record under the U.P. Gangster Act but did not make it a central issue for rejecting the petition.

Concluding the ruling, the Court said, "Our experience shows that such type of relationship often results in time pass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation."

With this, the Court has sent a clear message that it holds reservations about the stability and sincerity of live-in relationships, particularly for young adults.

Date of Decision: 25th September 2023

ABC And Another VS State Of U.P. And 3 Others    

Latest Legal News