Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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