In Live-In Relationships, Legal Protection Cannot Subvert Statutory and Personal Law Provisions: Allahabad High Court

In a significant judgement, the Allahabad High Court, led by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J., has dismissed a petition seeking protection for a live-in relationship involving an undivorced married woman, Saleha, and her partner, Vikas Kumar. The Court ruled that the relationship was in violation of Muslim Law and Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and thus could not be legally protected.

The Court assessed the legal status of the live-in relationship, particularly in the context of Petitioner No.1, Saleha, a married Muslim woman living with Petitioner No.2, Vikas Kumar, without a formal divorce. This relationship was scrutinized under Muslim Law and the IPC, with references to precedents that do not recognize such arrangements as 'live-in relationships' or 'relationships in the nature of marriage.'

The petitioners, Saleha and Vikas Kumar, approached the Court seeking protection from interference and harassment by Saleha's family, particularly her father. They argued that Saleha's husband had remarried and that she had chosen to live with Kumar. The petitioners faced threats to their life and liberty from Saleha's family, prompting them to seek legal intervention.

Legal Status of the Live-in Relationship: The Court rigorously examined the legal standing of the live-in relationship under Muslim Law and the IPC. Citing the Apex Court's observations in Kiran Rawat Vs. State of U.P., it was noted that Muslim Law does not recognize sexual relationships outside marriage. The court referred to the concept of "Zina" in Muslim law, which prohibits premarital and extramarital sex.

Applicability of Sections 494 and 495 IPC: The Court highlighted that the petitioners' relationship might fall under the ambit of adultery as defined in Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC. The relationship was scrutinized in light of the judgment in Asha Devi Vs. State of U.P., where the court addressed whether protection could be granted to relationships that potentially constitute offenses under the IPC.

Criteria for Live-in Relationships: The Court referred to the judgment of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal, where the Apex Court clarified that not all live-in relationships are akin to marriages. A live-in relationship to get legal recognition must meet specific criteria, which the petitioners' relationship did not fulfill.

Consideration of Mandamus Principles: The Court deliberated on the principle for issuing a writ of mandamus, emphasizing that it can only be issued if there's a legal right. The petitioners’ relationship, contravening existing laws, did not constitute such a right. This point was reinforced by referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyan Singh Vs. State of U.P., which outlined the conditions under which a writ of mandamus could be issued.

Examination of Religious Conversion and Personal Law: The Court noted that petitioner No.1 had not formally converted her religion under the Conversion Act, Sections 8 and 9. Since she was still legally married as per Muslim Law and living with another person without a divorce, her actions fell under the purview of adultery, making the relationship legally indefensible.

The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the relationship, in violation of Muslim Law and IPC, cannot be legally protected. The Court emphasized that it could not support or protect such a criminal act, underscoring the importance of legal adherence in matters of personal relationships.

Date of Decision: 23rd February 2024

Saleha And Anothers vs. State Of UP And 3 Others