MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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