“Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable POCSO | Absence of Medical Corroboration Not Fatal; Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Sufficient for Conviction: Orissa High Court Limitation Act | Article 137 Applies to Applications Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC; 3-Year Limit Cannot Be Rendered Illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Benami Defence Cannot Override Registered Ownership: Delhi High Court Buries 35-Year-Old Family Settlement Claim Over Property Dispute Off-Road Construction Vehicles Not ‘Motor Vehicles’ Under Law: Supreme Court Quashes Road Tax on Dumpers, Excavators, and Dozers

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Mandamus to Prevent Harassment in Live-in Relationship

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kiran Rawat and another individual seeking a mandamus to prevent harassment in their live-in relationship. The court emphasized that extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not meant to resolve private disputes and advised the petitioners to pursue appropriate legal avenues for their grievances. The judgment shed light on the recognition of live-in relationships, legal complexities, and the need for protection for individuals in such relationships.

The court stated, "We cannot allow the petitioners to raise disputed questions of fact under Writ jurisdiction as it would be a wrong assumption of such extraordinary jurisdiction." The bench further noted that the petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations of harassment and interference in their peaceful living, as they did not provide necessary details regarding the duration of the relationship, current marital status, or recognition by society.

Highlighting the recognition of live-in relationships, the court referred to previous judgments of the Supreme Court. While acknowledging that live-in relationships between consenting adults do not amount to offenses, the court clarified that such observations were made in specific contexts and did not promote or encourage such relationships. It stressed the legal complexities associated with property division, violence, and custody of children in live-in relationships and suggested the need for separate legislation to address these issues.

The judgment also underlined the importance of protection for women and children born out of live-in relationships. The court called for awareness among individuals about the legal implications and challenges associated with such relationships. It cited previous judgments that recognized the rights and entitlements of individuals in long-term live-in relationships.

The court advised the parties to approach the appropriate court of law or the police authority with their grievances. It encouraged the filing of FIRs or applications under the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and stressed the verification of age and other necessary aspects of the individuals involved before taking legal action.

Date of Decision: April 28, 2023

Kiran Rawat And Another vs State Of U.P.

Latest Legal News