'Infatuation, and timepass': Allahabad HC rejects couple's plea for live-in relationships

The Allahabad High Court rejected a plea from an interfaith couple seeking protection from the police in a live-in relationship, saying that such relationships are more about "infatuation" without any "stability or sincerity" and they often result in "timepass."

While stating that the Supreme Court had validated live-in partnerships on multiple instances, the High Court questioned whether it was a well-considered decision due to the petitioners' young age and time spent living together.

"No doubt that the Hon'ble the Apex Court, in a number of cases, have validated live-in relationships, 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 serious thought over such types of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of infatuation against the opposite sex without any sincerity," a two-judge bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi said.

The court also stated that live-in relationships are "temporary and fragile" and "timepass".

"Life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows that such types of relationships often result in timepass, temporary and fragile and, as such, we are avoiding giving any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation," the bench said.

The couple moved the court to seek police protection. They filed a petition to cancel an FIR lodged against the man by the woman's aunt under Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel marriage) of the Indian Penal Code.

The aunt, claiming to speak for the woman's mother, accused the man of being a reckless nonentity with a dubious past, citing his prior exploits mentioned under the UP Gangster Act. She pinned the man as a "road-romeo and vagabond" destined to smother her niece's otherwise prosperous future.

The woman, however, cited her age as a significant factor, implying that at 20, she is legally an adult with the capacity to make independent decisions about her life. However, the court, after listening to both sides, declared that the presented arguments were insufficient to invalidate the First Information Report (FIR).

The court further emphasised that unless the young woman and her partner formally commit to each other through marriage or demonstrate genuine sincerity in their relationship, it would withhold judgment on such matters.

Also Read: 'Take cerelac, focus on batting': Pakistan's Imam-ul-Haq gets trolled for saying need more proteins to hit sixes