Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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