District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High 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