Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking guidelines for registration of live-in couples in India.

The bench, which was led by CJI DY Chandrachud with Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala, questioned if the petitioner was attempting to prevent live-in relationships under the guise of fostering their security by seeking mandatory registration.

CJI also declared the plea as a "Hare Brained Petition".

Notably, the instant PIL was filed by Advocate Mamta Rani before the Supreme Court asking the Court to direct the Centre to make certain guidelines for the registration of live-in partnerships. The plea cited a rise in crimes such as rape and murder allegedly committed by live-in partners.

The petition, which related to the recent murder of Shraddha Walker reportedly by her live-in boyfriend Aaftab Amin Poonawala, also requests the establishment of norms and procedures for the registration of such relationships.

The plea points out the major steps taken by the Supreme Court for the protection of live-in relationship partners and states:

"Time and again, this Hon’ble Court has been the protector of the live-in partners and has passed numerous judgments which is having the effect of giving protection to the members of the live-in partnership be it the women, men or even the children born out of the such relationship.”

As there are no rules or guidelines governing live-in couples, there has been a significant increase in crimes committed by live-in partners, including grave crimes such as rape and murder, the PIL also states.

As per the plea, registration of a live-in relationship would lead to correct information being available to both the live-in partners about each other and also to the government on each of them regarding their marital status, their criminal background and other relevant details.

The petition not only focused on laws framing for live in relationships but at the same time it also seeks direction from the Central government to create a database to determine the actual number of persons engaging in live-in relationships in the country. "It can only be achieved by making registration of live-in relationship mandatory," the plea states. 

Further, it has also been contended that if the central government fails to register the live-in partnerships then it will be a violation of articles 19 and 21 of our Indian Constitution.

Lastly, the petitioner has stated that:

"There has been a significant increase in the number of false rape cases filed by women in which the women claim to be living in live-in relationships with the accused, and it is always difficult for the courts to determine whether the fact of living in a live-in relationship is proven by the backing of evidence."

Case Title: Mamta Rani vs. Union Of India