Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

While dealing with a bail application filed by a man accused of raping his female live-in partner, the bench of Justice Siddharth of the Allahabad High Court made noteworthy remarks about live-in relationships. 

He said that "on the face of it, the relationship of live-in sounds very attractive and lures the youth but as the time passes and middle-class social morality/norms start staring in their face, such couples gradually, realize that their relationship has no social sanction and it cannot continue for life".

In the majority of cases, break-ups take place between the couple after which it becomes difficult for the female partner to face the society, he added. 

The judge stressed that the middle class society does not look upon such separated females as normal. From social ostracisation to indecent public comments become part of her post-live-in relationship ordeal which may lead to cases like the one at hand, Justice Siddharth opined. 

He said that the family members of such female live-in partners desperately try for their daughter/sister to get married to her male live-in partner.

"While it is not difficult to find another female live-in-partner or wife for the male counterpart of a live-in-relationship, it is very difficult for the female partner to find a male partner for marriage and the social middle-class norms, irrespective of religion of the female partner, militate against her efforts to regain her social status," said Justice Siddharth.

The judge underscored that exception apart, no family willingly accepts such a female as their family member.

"There is no dearth of cases coming to the courts where the female partner of an erstwhile live-in-relationship commits suicide out of disgust caused by social ill behaviour," he observed. 

Further, Justice Siddharth asserted that the middle class morality cannot be ignored in a country like ours. "The morality of the highest class and the lowest class has nothing to do with the same since morality dies in riches and chokes in poverty," he stated. 

"The security, social acceptance, progress and stability which the institution of marriage provides to a person is never provided by live-in-relationship. Live-in-relationship shall only be considered as normal after the institution of marriage becomes obsolete in this country," said Justice Siddharth.

While stressing that in many of the so-called developed countries, it has become a big problem for them to protect the institution of marriage, he opined that "we are proceedings to create a great problem for us in future" as well. 

"There is systematic design to destroy the institution of marriage in this country and destablize the society and hinder the progress of our country. The films and the T.V serials being aired are contributing to eradicate of institution of marriage. The infidelity to a partner in married relationship and having free live-in-relationship are being shown as sign of progressive society," he underscored. 

Justice Siddharth opined that the youth gets attracted to such philosophy being advanced unaware of the long-term consequences. 

"A person not having cordial family relationship cannot contribute to the progress of the nation. He/she has no anchor in life to bank upon. Hopping from one relationship to other does not lead to any fulfilling existence. The brutish concept of changing partners in every season cannot be considered to be the hallmark of a stable and healthy society," the judge asserted. 

In the judge's opinion, "the security and stability which the institution of marriage provides to an individual's life cannot be expected from live-in-relationship".

The judge also commented on the future of the children born to live-in couples. He said that their children will also face social eradication and may blame them for life. "In the case of a female child born out of live-in-relationship there are other ill effects that are too obvious to be elaborated. Courts came across such cases daily," he stressed. 

Regarding the bail application before him, the judge noted that the accused namely Adnan was accused of befriending the victim and raping her on false promise of marriage for one year of her live-in relationship with him.

The counsel for the accused informed the court that the allegations were also there that he made the victim abort their child and he had made an incriminating video of the victim to threaten her and to continue the rape. 

He told that the FIR was lodged by the victim when the accused had refused to marry her after one year of live-in relationship. 

The accused's counsel further highlighted that the victim was not a minor as she was 19 years old and there was no medical evidence against the accused of committing offense under Section 316, IPC (Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide).

Taking note of the same, the single judge bench held that this was another case where after enjoying the live-in-relationship the young couple had parted ways, and the girl, like in majority of cases, lodged FIR in vain bid to enter into secure relationship of marriage with the accused. 

Therefore, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the counsel for the parties among other factors, the bench allowed the bail application. 

Case Title: Adnan v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others