Latest News
Back
"Allahabad High Court refuses to grant protection to married woman in live-in relationship."
During a hearing on June 21, 2021, the Allahabad High Court judges observed that “it’s failed to understand how such a petition could be allowed as it permits illegality in the society.”
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday refused to grant protection from arrest to a woman, who left her husband and mingled in a Live- in relationship with another man and she had not divorced from her current and living husband. The court said that it was going against the proviso of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
A Divisional Bench Comprising of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Dinesh Pathak observed that while hearing the case that it “failed to understand how such a petition could be permitted as it allowed the illegality in a society.” The court dismissed the plea of the woman and imposed the cost of Rs. 5,000 on her i.e. on the petitioner. The court also ordered that the cost should be deposited by the live – in relation couple in the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Service Authority.
The court observed that in the live-in relationship, both the couple are adults. The bench remarked that: “Can we grant protection to the people who wants to commit what can be said to be an act which is against the mandate of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955?”
The Court held that while Article 21 of the Indian Constitution permits a people to have their life with liberty but on the other hand says it should be within the ambit of law.
The live – in relationship couple from the Aligarh District seeks a plea from the court that the husband and other respondents should not “interfere and disturb the peaceful live – in relationship of the petitioners by adopting coercive measures.” The wife claimed that she is legally wedded wife of her husband with whom she is no longer lives.
The court observed that she “has for whatever reason decided to go away from her husband.” “Can we permit them to be in a live- in – relationship under the guise of Article 21 of the Constitution i.e. Protection of life and liberty?” The Court said that – “It was whether her husband had committed an act which could be deemed an offence under the IPC section 377 (unnatural offence) which she never complained of are disturbed questions of facts and there was no FIR how such a petition could be allowed to permit illegality in the society.”
