The court said that once an adult person chooses his partner, no other person, even if he is a family member, has the right to object and disrupt their peaceful life. The court said that according to the responsibilities imposed on the state under the Constitution, it is the duty of the state to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. With these observations, the High Court approved several petitions seeking police protection by couples in live-in relationships.
Order is also important
The High Court said that the court is of the view that the state cannot refuse to protect the life and liberty of consenting adults. The petitions filed by live-in couples demanding security were heard in the single bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh. This order of the Allahabad High Court is important because in the same case, a bench of the High Court had described such relationships as a “social problem” in the Kiran Rawat and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case. Given that traditionally the law has been in favor of marriage. The High Court had stressed the need to create awareness among the youth about the emotional and social pressures and legal troubles arising from such relationships. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh was simultaneously hearing the petitions in which live-in couples had demanded police protection. Because they face threat to their lives from family members.
Government lawyer protested
The government lawyer opposed these arguments and said that Indian society cannot accept live-in relationship as an alternative to marriage. In which there are social and legal responsibilities. Describing such relationships as merely a contract of living together, “which is renewed every day” and which can be ended without consent. The state argued that granting them protection would impose an unlawful obligation on the state to protect personal decisions that undermine the social fabric of the country. The State further said that the police cannot be forced to act as personal security for people living together without marriage on the basis of vague apprehensions. The state cited Kiran Rawat’s decision, in which it was argued that the High Court had refused to provide protection to couples living together in a live-in relationship.
Amicus curiae gave this argument
On the other hand, the amicus curiae argued that live-in relationships cannot be called illegal. The Supreme Court and the High Court have accepted live-in relationships in many decisions. The court said that Lata Singh and S. In landmark judgments like Khushboo, the Supreme Court did not criticize or condemn live-in relationships or deny them protection. That said, the Kiran Rawat case effectively ignored these binding precedents. It also said, “On attaining the age of majority, a person has the right to choose his legal partner. If denied, it would affect not only his human rights but also his right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the High Court rejected the State’s contention saying that live-in relationships weaken the “social fabric”. The Court said that the petitioners are majors. They married. have decided to live together without sanctity and the Court has no right to judge their decision. Consequently, the Court has allowed the petitions and directed that if there is any hindrance in the peaceful life of the petitioners, they may approach the concerned Police Commissioner/SSP/SP.
High Court gave these instructions to the police
The High Court directed that the police officers, after ensuring that the petitioners are adults and living together of their own free will, will immediately provide them security. The court also said that if the petitioners are educated and produce their educational certificates and other certificates valid under law, which makes it clear that they have become adults and are living on their own free will, then no police officer will take any coercive action against them. Unless an FIR is registered against him for any crime. The court said, if they do not have any documentary proof of age and they are from rural background and or are illiterate or less educated, then the police officer can get the ossification test done to find out the correct age of such a boy or girl and can also follow other procedures approved under the law.
