Back
P&H High Court Dismisses Protection Plea for Live-In Couple, Both Already Married With Children
The has dismissed a filed by a man and a woman, both already married with children from their respective spouses, seeking protection for their . Justice Alok Jain held that the petition was an attempt to cover up a "" under the guise of legal process and amounted to an abuse of the law.
A Relationship Under Scrutiny
The petitioners, identified as Rasid and another individual, approached the High Court under , claiming they were in a and feared for their life and liberty due to opposition from their families. They alleged threats from private respondents and stated they had submitted a representation to authorities on , before approaching the court.
State's Response Reveals Key Facts
The State, represented by , countered the petitioners' claims. The court was informed that statements from respondent No. 4—the husband of petitioner No. 2—and other co-villagers had been recorded, and no credible threat perception was found. Significantly, it emerged that petitioner No. 1 was already married to respondent No. 13 and had two children from that marriage, while petitioner No. 2 was married to respondent No. 4 and had six children. This meant the directly affected the future of eight children.
Abuse of Process, Not Protection of Life
Justice Alok Jain observed that the fundamental prerequisite for seeking is the existence of a . The court found that the petitioners had failed to establish any such apprehension. The judge remarked:
"Strangely in the recent times, it has been found that concept of live-in-relationship is being misused and abused; however that question is kept open but the fundamental pre-requisite for seeking is that there has to be some cogent specific threat apprehensions to the life and liberty of the petitioners."
The court further noted:
"The petition appears to be an attempt to cover up the promiscous relationship of the petitioners under the guise of legal process, thereby amounting to an ."
Balancing Rights and Social Fabric
While acknowledging that every citizen is entitled to personal life and liberty, the court emphasized that this right cannot be used to undermine the . The judge stated:
"The life and liberty of the petitioners have to be weighed equally with the rights of dignified life of the other immediate family members, particularly their lawful spouses and their respective children."
The court also considered the broader societal impact, noting that granting such protection would
"disrupt the entire social fabric of society."
No Relief, But State's Duty Remains
Dismissing the petition as lacking merit, Justice Alok Jain refrained from directing the deposit of a fixed deposit for the children, as requested by the petitioners' counsel. However, the court clarified that the State remains duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of its citizens in genuine cases.
This judgment serves as a significant reminder that the courts will not extend blanket protection to live-in relationships, especially when they involve married individuals with children, and will rigorously examine claims of threat perception to prevent misuse of legal remedies.
