Unless Couple Decides to Marry, Live-in Relationship is More of an Infatuation: Allahabad HC

Dealing with a plea to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a Muslim man, who was in a live-in relationship with a Hindu girl, the Allahabad High Court (HC) recently observed that such type of relationship “is more of an infatuation and not a stable and sincere relationship, unless and until the couple decides to marry “.

A division bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi said, “No doubt that Hon’ble the Apex Court in number of cases, have validated the live-in relationship, but in the span of two months in a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give a serious thought over their such type of temporary relationship.”

“Life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows that such type of relationship often results in timepass, temporary and fragile,” the bench observed, while refusing to grant any protection to the accused during the stage of the investigation in the case against him.

THE CASE

The couple moved the high court invoking its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the FIR lodged in August 2023 under section 366 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the Muslim man. The petitioners sought direction to quash the FIR and a direction to the police authorities not to arrest him.

Their counsel urged before the division bench that the couple needed protection from the police as the couple had decided to “remain in live-in relationship”. The age of the girl was stated to be 20 years.

The girl’s aunt, who had lodged the FIR, had stated that the accused had enticed the girl away, and she was concerned about her safety as she was apprehending that anything untoward might happen to her.

An argument was put forth by the counsel for the petitioners that the FIR had been filed by the aunt of the girl, not her father. It was also alleged that the aunt used to treat the girl in a most inhuman way and used to physically torture her.

WHAT THE COURT SAID

However, the division bench opined that it did not matter as to who filed the FIR in the present matter.

“The role of the FIR is information given to the police for which police take action against known or unknown accused persons. It hardly makes any difference who has lodged the FIR, whether she is the mother or her aunt,” said the bench.

Moreover, the court pointed out that the counsel for the informant (the girl’s aunt) had submitted that the accused had a chequered past and an FIR had been lodged against him under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act in 2017 as well. At this strength, it was contended by the counsel for the informant that the “accused was a Road Romeo and vagabond who had no future for his own life, and with all certainty, he would ruin the life of the girl”.

“The Court has its own reservation regarding such type of relationship and shall not be misconstrued that the Court is passing any remark or validate such type of relationship of the petitioners or protect them from any legal proceeding instituted in accordance with law,” said the bench.