Not against live-in relationship: HC
Court grants police protection to couple
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court has observed that it is not against live-in relationship but cannot give protection when one of the live-in partners is married.
The court said this on Friday this while granting police protection to the petitioners, who were at a marriageable age and wanted a live-in relationship, and subsequently got married to each other.
While partly allowing the writ petition of a woman and a man of Badaun district of Uttar Pradesh, a division bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Dinesh Pathak observed,
“We are not against the live-in relation. Earlier, we rejected a matter seeking protection by a couple who wanted to live in relation. The reasons were that the protection to live-in relation was sought for by the petitioners during subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners.”
The (present) petitioners were a young couple, who wanted a live-in relation. It was conveyed that the said live-in relation had now converted into a marriage. The couple’s marriage had been solemnised during the pendency of this writ petition.
The petitioners approached the court on the apprehension that they would be harassed and would not be permitted to live in peace by private respondents, who are their family members.
While directing the police to provide protection to petitioners, the court observed, “In this case, both the petitioners are at marriageable age. They wanted to live- in relation but subsequently they have married each other. Hence, in view of the decision of the apex court in Gian Devi case and as per the government order dated August 31, 2019, the police shall grant them protection after verifying all the documents.”
The high court on June 15, 2021 had dismissed the protection plea of a live-in couple in another case, noting that the woman was already married and was in a live-in relationship with another man.
“We fail to understand how such a petition be allowed permitting illegality in the society,” the court had said.