[News18] Family's objection to Live-in relationship a social problem; Court cannot intervene unless harassment is established beyond doubt: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition for protection moved by an interfaith couple who was in a live-in relationship claiming that they were being harassed by the girl's mother.

The division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari highlighted that in the couple's writ petition, essential details such as their marital status and specific instances of the alleged harassment among others were missing. 

Therefore, while stressing that writ jurisdiction of the high court being extraordinary jurisdiction is not made to resolve such type of dispute between two private parties, the division bench said, 

"We believe that it is a social problem which can be uprooted socially and not by the intervention of the Writ Court in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless harassment is established beyond doubt".

Court emphasised that if there is any real grievance of a live-in couple against their parents or relatives who are allegedly interfering with their live-in status which goes to such an extent that there is a threat of life, they are at liberty to lodge an FIR under Section 154 (1) or Section 154 (3) CrPC with the Police, move an application under section 156 (3) before the competent Court or file a complaint case under Section 200 CrPC.

Court added that similarly, in case the parents or relatives, find that illegally their son or daughter has eloped for the purpose of marriage, although he or she is underage or not inclined or the respondents are behaving violently, they are equally at liberty to take steps in a similar manner.

"But, when neither of the actions is taken against each other, and only a fictitious application with certain allegations,...is moved under Writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it appears to be a circuitous way to get the seal and signature of the High Court upon their conduct," said the high court regarding such live-in couples. 

Moreover, though the high court referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in several live-in relationship cases where the top court granted relief to live-in couples, it made it clear that such observations of the top court cannot be considered to promote such relationships.

"Law traditionally has been biased in favour of marriage. It reserves many rights and privileges to married persons to preserve and encourage the institution of marriage. the Supreme Court is simply accepting a social reality and it has no intention to unravel the fabric of Indian family life," asserted the high court. 

Further, court stressed the need of making young people more aware about the complications of live-in relationships. 

"Awareness has to be created in young minds not just from the point of view of emotional and societal pressures that such relationships may create, but also from the perspective that it could give rise to various legal hassles," said the court. 

Court pointed out that partners in a live-in relationship do not enjoy an automatic right of inheritance to the property of their partner. 

Court further underscored that though the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 provides for maintenance but the Act does not include concubines or mistress in the list of persons to be maintained.

In addition to that, court pointed out that premarital sex is not permissible in Islam and according to Quran (chapter 24) a hundred lashes are to be awarded to the unmarried male and female who commit fornication together.

Regarding the matter at hand, court noted that the petitioner couple had only leveled allegations of harassment without any details or supporting affidavits, etc and they were just claiming that they being majors were entitled to live with whomsoever they like. 

Court held that the matter was a dispute between two private parties and writ jurisdiction being extraordinary jurisdiction is not meant to resolve such type of dispute. 

Accordingly, court refused to allow any relief to the couple and dismissed their plea.

Case Title: Kiran Rawat And Another v State of UP and Others