Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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