Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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