Allahabad High Court Declines Protection for Live-In Relationship: ‘Life is Not a Bed of Roses’

Share:
advocate judicial party RPF Advocates live Mother SARFAESI steel v Departmental properly Evidence Divorce Property Factual Bail FIR 376 Bail bail Child Allahabad High Cour 1989 Appointment Investigation Cheque Fear mother IIIT court Law application Acquittal 29A Marriage Maintenance Dowry Application dowryMarriage bail Land Earning Justice Written Statement Maintenance Summoning Rape Video Death Bail Guilty jurisdiction 138Assault investigation Temple bail Wife velectricity Child Drinking final murder Love Cheque Throwing Brick Husband NDPS Case  allahabad addition preliminary evidence Cheque Bounce murder evidence grievances dowry 210 consideration order corporation advocate certificate marriage application mechanical maintenance financial evidence electricity wife probation bail individual investigation

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition that sought legal protection for a live-in relationship between a young interfaith couple. The Court made it clear that it has reservations about such relationships, stating, “The life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities.”

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an FIR dated 17th August 2023 under Section 366 IPC. The young couple sought protection from arrest and quashing of the FIR filed by the woman’s aunt. They argued that as adults, they have the right to live together. However, the Court was unconvinced and observed, “It is more of infatuation against opposite sex without any sincerity.”

The judgment further clarified that the validity of an FIR does not depend on the relationship of the complainant to the victim. In this case, the FIR was lodged by the young woman’s aunt, which the petitioners had contested. “It hardly makes any difference that who has lodged the FIR, whether she is the mother or her aunt,” the Court stated.

The Court also expressed concern over the petitioner no. 2’s previous criminal record under the U.P. Gangster Act but did not make it a central issue for rejecting the petition.

Concluding the ruling, the Court said, “Our experience shows that such type of relationship often results in time pass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation.”

With this, the Court has sent a clear message that it holds reservations about the stability and sincerity of live-in relationships, particularly for young adults.

Date of Decision: 25th September 2023

ABC And Another VS State Of U.P. And 3 Others    

Download Judgment

Share: