Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, denied the parole request of a married convict who wanted to establish a conjugal relationship with his live-in partner.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Granting parole on the ground to have a child or to maintain conjugal relationships with a live-in partner, where the convict already has a legally wedded wife and children born out of that wedlock, would set a harmful precedent”.

Advocate Ansh Makkar, representing the petitioner, argued that his wife, Ms. T, had expressed her desire to start a family with the petitioner because she felt deprived of her right to have children, despite not having committed any offence. It was further argued that refusing to engage in a marital relationship with his wife would negatively impact her rights. Additionally, it was stated that denying parole to the petitioner would also harm his ability to maintain social connections. 

On the other hand, Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha, representing the state, opposed the writ petition, alleging that it was based on false and frivolous grounds, as Ms. T was not legally married to the petitioner. He stated that the petitioner was already married to someone else and was not legally separated. Therefore, he argued against granting parole based on the petitioner's relationship with Ms. T. 

The main issue was: “Whether a convict is entitled to a grant of parole on the ground of maintaining conjugal rights and procreation with his ‘live-in partner’ when he already has a legally wedded wife?”

The court noted that the petitioner was already legally married with children, which doesn't align with the circumstances of the cited case. Also, the law and prison rules don't allow parole for maintaining a marital bond, especially with a live-in partner, when the convict already has a legal spouse and children.

The bench observed that granting parole in such circumstances would establish a problematic precedent, leading to numerous similar petitions. This would contradict existing laws and regulations governing parole eligibility.

The court clarified that it neither has the authority nor the desire to comment on any individual's personal life or choices, including their relationships with their spouse or partner. 

The court maintained a distinction between law and individual or societal morality, emphasizing that personal choices and relationships of adults were not within its purview unless there was a criminal complaint. However, when such matters were brought before the court seeking legal recourse, it had to base its decisions solely on existing laws and prison regulations, without being influenced by personal or societal moral judgments.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the parole request. 

Case Title: Sonu Sonkar v The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors (2024:DHC:3763)