Read Time: 06 minutes
Court said that there are several conditions for a live-in relationship to be treated as a relationship in the nature of marriage and one of them is that both the partners should be major.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a child cannot have a live-in relationship. This would be an act not only immoral but also illegal, said the court.
Court emphasised that though there is no law that prohibits a live-in relationship, a boy under the age of 18 years cannot be permitted to have such a relationship.
"There are several conditions for live in relationship to be treated as relationship in the nature of marriage. In any case, the person has to be major i.e. 18 years of age although he may not be of marriageable age i.e. 21 years," said the court.
Court was dealing with a writ petition moved by a 19-year-old Hindu girl seeking direction to quash a case lodged against her 17-year-old Muslim live-in partner under Sections 363, and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) i.e. for abduction.
The counsel for the couple argued that the girl was major and had left her home voluntarily, therefore, there was no case of abduction. Moreover, he apprised the court the couple lived together for 15 days but they were caught by the family of the girl. Though the girl escaped, the boy remains in illegal custody of girl's family, the counsel informed.
The division bench of Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Rajendra Kumar observed that already the high court, in Kiran Rawat and another vs. State of U.P. and others (2023), has noted that in Muslim Law live-in relationship is not permitted.
Further, the bench said that the POCSO Act is a gender-neutral Act and as such the definition of a child would apply to a male as well as to a female person, and if the male is below eighteen years of age he will also be treated as a child.
In addition to that, the bench said that by itself live-in relationship has not been given any protective umbrella under any law of the land except that two major persons have the right to live their own life and to that extent, their personal liberty is to be protected.
Therefore, taking note of the facts of the case at hand, court held that an accused who is below 18 years of age cannot seek protection on the ground of live-in relationship with a major girl.
"In case, this is permitted, this would amount to putting premium on an illegal activity and thus would not be in the interest of our society and we are not inclined to put a seal of approval on such legally impermissible activities," opined the court.
Accordingly, while stressing whether abduction, as given under Section 366 IPC, was committed by the boy or not was yet to be ascertained by the investigating agency, court dismissed the plea to quash the case.
Case Title: Smt. Saloni Yadav And Another v. State of UP and 3 Others
Please Login or Register
