Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently held an inter-faith couple at liberty to live together. Court ordered that "no person, including their parents or anyone acting on their behalf, shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful live-in-relationship".

The bench of Justice Surendra Singh added that in case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the couple, they shall approach the Superintendent of Police concerned, with a copy of the high court's order, who shall provide immediate protection to them.

Referring to the rulings of the Supreme Court, the single judge bench said, 

"...it is clear that a boy or girl, who have attained majority, is free to marry or live with a person of his/her choice and no one including his/her parents or anyone on their behalf can interfere in their right to freedom of choosing a partner which emanates from Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

Court also refuted the argument put forth by the state counsel that a division bench decision of the high court in Kiran Rawat and another vs. State of U.P. (2023) had refused to provide protection to couples residing together in a live-in relationship. 

Court said that from perusal of the judgment in that case, it was apparent that the court had not held that the couple residing in a live-in relationship were not entitled to protection of the court, rather it was due to the special circumstances of that case, that the court had denied protection to the couple.

Court passed the order in a plea moved by an interfaith couple seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the private respondent not to interfere in their peaceful living.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the petitioners were major and they were residing together peacefully out of their own free will in a live-in-relationship.

The counsel apprised the court that the mother of the girl and her family members were averse to the petitioners' live-in relationship, and they were harassing and disturbing the peaceful life of the petitioners.

The counsel submitted that the mother of the girl had threatened the couple with dire consequences and therefore, they have apprehension of honour killing from her family members.

He further informed that the boy had moved an application before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar seeking protection but to no avail.

On the other hand, the couple's plea was opposed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State who submitted that both petitioners belonged to different religious groups and living in live-in-relationship is punishable as Zina (Adultery) in Muslim personal law.

Case Title: Razia And Another v. State of UP and 3 Others