News Analysis India

Tag: Live-In Relationship

  • Difficult for a woman to live alone after live-in relationship ends : Allahabad High Court

    Express News Service

    LUCKNOW: With the increasing cases of the killing of women engaged in live-in relationships, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that it was difficult for a woman to live alone after such a relationship ended as Indian society, still at large did not accept and recognize such relationships.

    The Court gave this observation on February 14, this year while hearing a bail application of a man who was arrested for not fulfilling his promise to marry the woman who had been his live-in partner.

    While granting bail to the applicant Aditya Raj Verma, the single judge bench, comprising Justice Siddharth, noted that the woman in a live-in relationship was left with no option but to lodge a case against her partner in such a situation.

    “…this is one case where the disastrous consequences of live-in relationship have come on the scene. It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking off a live-in relationship. The Indian society at large does not recognise such a relationship. The woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in the present case,” the order said.

    As per the prosecution, the couple were in a live-in relationship for over a year. The woman was earlier married to another man with whom she had two sons. Later, she went with the applicant and started a live-in relationship. Consequently, she became pregnant but the applicant refused to marry her.

    The woman got an FIR lodged against the applicant alleging that he used to send her objectionable photographs to her ex-husband following which he also refused to accept her.

    As a result, the applicant was booked under Sections 376 (rape) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Counsel for the applicant argued that the woman was a major and she entered into a live-in relationship with the accused willingly. She was capable of understanding the consequence of such a relationship and there was no allegation that the relationship started with the promise of marriage, he added.

    It was further argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and that he was in jail since November 22, last year, even without any criminal history.

    However, after hearing all the sides, and given the nature of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused and other grounds, the Court granted bail to the applicant.

    LUCKNOW: With the increasing cases of the killing of women engaged in live-in relationships, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that it was difficult for a woman to live alone after such a relationship ended as Indian society, still at large did not accept and recognize such relationships.

    The Court gave this observation on February 14, this year while hearing a bail application of a man who was arrested for not fulfilling his promise to marry the woman who had been his live-in partner.

    While granting bail to the applicant Aditya Raj Verma, the single judge bench, comprising Justice Siddharth, noted that the woman in a live-in relationship was left with no option but to lodge a case against her partner in such a situation.

    “…this is one case where the disastrous consequences of live-in relationship have come on the scene. It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking off a live-in relationship. The Indian society at large does not recognise such a relationship. The woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in the present case,” the order said.

    As per the prosecution, the couple were in a live-in relationship for over a year. The woman was earlier married to another man with whom she had two sons. Later, she went with the applicant and started a live-in relationship. Consequently, she became pregnant but the applicant refused to marry her.

    The woman got an FIR lodged against the applicant alleging that he used to send her objectionable photographs to her ex-husband following which he also refused to accept her.

    As a result, the applicant was booked under Sections 376 (rape) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Counsel for the applicant argued that the woman was a major and she entered into a live-in relationship with the accused willingly. She was capable of understanding the consequence of such a relationship and there was no allegation that the relationship started with the promise of marriage, he added.

    It was further argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and that he was in jail since November 22, last year, even without any criminal history.

    However, after hearing all the sides, and given the nature of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused and other grounds, the Court granted bail to the applicant.

  • Not for courts to judge couple’s decision to stay in live-in relationship: Punjab and Haryana HC

    By PTI
    CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted protection to a young couple involved in a live-in relationship, observing that it is not for the courts to judge them if they want to stay together without sanctity of marriage.

    The order of the single bench came following a petition by a 17-year-old girl and a 20-year-old-man from Punjab’s Bathinda who sought protection of their life and liberty from the family members of the former.

    The court also observed that honour killings were prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, and said it is for the state to ensure protection of such couples.

    The petitioners submitted that the parents of the girl wanted her to marry a person of their choice as they had come to know about her relationship.

    She left her parents’ home and started living with her partner.

    They decided to live together till such time as they could solemnise a marriage on attaining the marriageable age.

    They further submitted that they had approached the Bathinda Senior Superintendent of Police, seeking protection but there had not been any response.

    Following a notice of motion, the Punjab Assistant Advocate General submitted that the couple seeking protection were not married and, according to their own pleadings, were in a live-in relationship.

    He further submitted that the coordinate benches have recently dismissed similar matters, where protection was sought by persons who are in live-in relationship.

    “It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought.

    “In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to uphold to the Rule of law,” Justice Sant Parkash wrote in his June 3 order.

    “The petitioners herein have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision,” the judge observed.

    While observing that one cannot lose sight of honour killings prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the judge said,”It is for the State at this juncture, to ensure their protection and their personal liberty.”

    “If the petitioners herein have not committed any offence, this court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to. Therefore, with due respect to the judgments rendered by coordinate benches, who have denied protection to couples who are in live-in relationship, this court is unable to adopt the same view,” the single bench said in its order.

    The court directed the Bathinda SSP to grant the protection to the petitioners.

    Some benches have earlier given different verdicts in matters pertaining to live-in relationships.

    A single bench of Justice H S Madaan in his May 11 order had said a live-in-relationship is morally and socially not acceptable while dismissing a petition of a runaway couple from Punjab, seeking protection of their life and liberty.

    Justice Sudhir Mittal of the high court in the May 18 order had granted protection to a Haryana couple who were in a live-in relationship while observing that social acceptance of such relationships is on the increase.

  • Social acceptance of live-in relationship on rise: HC grants Haryana couple protection

    By PTI
    CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High court has granted protection to a couple who are in a live-in relationship, observing that social acceptance of such relationships is increasing.

    The order by Justice Sudhir Mittal, passed on Tuesday, comes days after another bench of the high court observed in a separate case that a live-in relationship is morally and socially unacceptable.

    Justice Mittal’s order came in response to a petition filed by Jind-based couple Pardeep (26) and Pooja (23), their counsel, Devender Arya, said.

    The couple submitted that they were adults and had decided to enter into a live-in relationship after careful consideration.

    They alleged that Pooja’s family was against the relationship and had threatened to cause physical harm.

    Opposing the protection to the petitioners, the counsel representing the state of Haryana said live-in relationships are not legal and are frowned upon by the society.

    To this, Justice Mittal observed that the Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land, and right to life and liberty is enshrined therein and is treated as a basic feature.

    “The said right includes the right of an individual to full development of his/her potential in accordance with his/her choice and wish and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to choose a partner of his/her choice,” the judge observed.

    “The individual also has the right to formalise the relationship with the partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship,” he added.

    The concept of live-in relationships has crept into our society from western nations, and initially, found acceptance in the metropolitan cities probably because individuals felt formalisation of a relationship through marriage was not necessary for complete fulfilment, the judge wrote in his order.

    “Education played a great role in development of this concept. Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and villages also as is evident from this petition. This shows that social acceptance for live-in relationships is on the increase,” he observed.

    “In law, such a relationship is not prohibited nor does it amount to commission of any offence and thus, in my considered view, such persons are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country,” Justice Mittal wrote in his order.

    However, a single bench of Justice H S Madaan had in a May 11 order said a live-in relationship was morally and socially unacceptable, and dismissed a petition of a runaway couple from Punjab, Gulza Kumari (19) and Gurwinder Singh (22), who sought protection of their life and liberty.

    “As a matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking seal of approval on their live-in relationship, which is morally and socially not acceptable and no protection order in the petition can be passed,” Justice Madaan had said in his order.

    In their petition, the couple had said they were living together and intended to get married shortly.

    They apprehended danger to their lives from Kumari’s parents.

  • If a woman feels she is nothing without support of a man that is failure of system: Kerala HC

    By Express News Service
    KOCHI: If a woman feels she is nothing without the support of a man, that is the failure of the system, the Kerala High Court HAS observed.

    The HC observed this while considering the plea of a reunited couple to get back their child who was adopted by a childless couple.

    While describing the woes of a single mother, the court also quoted a couplet from Manusmriti — “Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra Devata, yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvaastatrafalaah kriyaah.” (Where women are honoured, divinity blossoms there, and where women are dishonored, all action no matter how noble remain unfruitful.”)

    Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Kause Edappagath observed that the case of John and Anitha (names changed) unbundle the trauma of a couple in a live-in relationship, isolation of a single mother, love of a mother for her child, and rights of the biological father.

    John and Anitha, who are social workers, met during the floods that devastated Kerala in 2018. During their live-in relationship, Anitha gave birth to a child. An artist by profession, John; later left for Karnataka to act in a film. He appears to have broken the relationship with Anitha for a while or remained elusive. Anxious Anitha made attempts to contact John but in vain.

    Distraught and devastated, Anitha handed over the child to the Child Welfare Committee on May 8, 2020. Thereafter, she constantly kept in touch with the committee and the Child Care Institution where the child was put up, to keep a track of the wellbeing of the child.

    The court pointed out that the chat messages of Anitha with the social worker depict how vulnerable it is for a woman to become a mother, not in a legally wedded relation. Desperation and plight of the motherhood reflected through the chat messages that depict the care for the baby from the womb of the person, Anitha. The child thereafter was given in adoption to a couple on February 2, 2021.

    ALSO READ | Kerala Elections: CPM assesses it will get 80-85 seats

    However, John returned to Anitha, the reunited couple has approached the High Court to get back their child. The Bench held that in view of the willingness of the biological father to take care of the child, the committee should consider the couple’s plea. The court also set aside the certificate declaring that the child was legally free for adoption under section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

    The court observed that “in the state where we boast cent per cent literacy, our attitude to a woman is despising; a single mother has no financial or social support. She faces emotional challenges and is forced to believe she is destined to be isolated as a result of guilt. She gets hardly any support from thesystem. It is time for the government to evolve a scheme to support the single mother.”

    The court observed: “The anomie Anitha had to face as a single mother is a hurdle created by society. Anitha never attempted to exterminate her womb; she bore the pain to give birth; like every mother, she loved to care for the child, but was not allowed by circumstances in society.

    “She thought without the support of a man, she cannot survive. If a woman feels she is nothing without the support of the man that is the failure of the system. She shall not succumb to the temptation of giving up. The power of humans in this universe is the power of motherhood. It is for the State to make her realize that her struggle with the forces undermining her existence can be validated with the support of rule of law. That self-belief must be her identity and respect due to her”.

    The court also added that “a woman’s womb is a precious possession of her personhood and no one can claim right over it; except with her consent.” In a live-in relationship, a couple acknowledges mutual rights and obligations. It is more of a contract. Offspring in such a relationship is acknowledging the biological parental rights of both, observed the court.

  • Married woman living with another sans divorce not entitled for protection: Allahabad HC

    By PTI
    ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a married woman living with another person without divorcing husband will not be entitled for protection from the court.

    Petitioners Asha Devi and Suraj Kumar had moved the court contending that they both are adults “living as husband and wife”, and so no one should interfere in their lives.

    Opposing the petition, the state counsel mentioned that Asha Devi was earlier married to Mahesh Chandra and has started living with Suraj Kumar without obtaining divorce which is an offence and thus is not entitled to any protection.

    A two-judge bench comprising Justice S P Kesarwani and Justice Y K Srivastava on Monday observed that Asha Devi was still the legally wedded wife of Mahesh Chandra.

    As Asha Devi is married, the act of petitioners particularly Suraj Kumar may constitute an offence under Sections 494 (marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife)/ 495 (same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted) of the IPC, the bench said.

    Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase live-in relationship or relationship in the nature of marriage, the judges observed.

    Dismissing the petition the court observed, “It is a settled law that writ of mandamus can be issued if the petitioner has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition.”

    “The petitioners do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus,” it said.