Disciplinary Inquiry Stands Vitiated If No Oral Evidence Is Led To Prove Charges: Allahabad High Court Quashes Punishment Against SDM Delay In Lodging FIR For Outraging Modesty Not Fatal; Victims Often Hesitate Due To Social Stigma: Bombay High Court Maintenance Under PWDV Act Must Be Awarded From Date Of Filing Application, Not Date Of Order: Calcutta High Court Plea Of Alibi Must Be Proved With Absolute Certainty By Accused; Prosecution Case Must Still Stand On Its Own Legs: Delhi High Court Freezing Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Amount Is Disproportionate, Violates Article 21: Gujarat High Court Catch-Up Rule Applies In Absence Of State Law On Consequential Seniority; General Category Candidates Regain Seniority Upon Promotion: Jharkhand High Court Relaxation Of Voting Disqualification For Members Of 'Federal' Co-operative Societies Applies To 'Apex' Societies Too: Karnataka High Court Absence Of Express Trust Not Decisive; Public Dedication Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties & Long User: Kerala High Court Bhojshala Is A Temple Of Goddess Saraswati, 2003 Order Permitting Namaz Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Petitioner Seeking LOC Quashing Suppressed Foreign Citizenship; Not Entitled To Relief Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Protection Of Forests Outweighs Private Rights Of Encroachers; Voter IDs, Aadhaar Don't Confer Right To Stay In Reserved Forest: Gauhati High Court Section 294-A IPC: Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Without Prior Written Consent From State Government Or District Magistrate: Orissa High Court Defective Affidavit Not A Ground To Reject Election Petition At Threshold; It Is A Curable Defect: Uttarakhand High Court Witness Cannot Be Confronted During Cross-Examination With Documents Executed By Third Parties Without Prior Production: Telangana High Court

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