Live-in relationship cannot provide stability, security: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad HC has observed that live-in relationships cannot provide security, social acceptance, progress and stability that the institution of marriage provides.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has observed that live-in relationships cannot provide security, social acceptance, progress and stability that the institution of marriage provides to a person in this country and women especially face social ostracisation in case of a breakup.
While allowing a bail plea of a person accused of raping his live-in partner, Justice Siddharth observed, “In the majority of cases, breakups take place between the couple. After a breakup, it becomes difficult for the female partner to face society.” “The middle-class society does not look upon such separated female as normal.
Also Read
From social ostracisation to indecent public comments become part of her post-live-in relationship ordeal. Then she somehow tries to get her live-in relationship with the male partner get converted into the relationship of marriage having social sanction,” the court said.
The order was delivered last Tuesday and uploaded recently.
The court said, “The brutish concept of changing partners in every season cannot be considered to be the hallmark of a stable and healthy society. The security and stability which the institution of marriage provides to an individual’s life cannot be expected from a live-in relationship.”
“Live-in relationship shall only be considered as normal after the institution of marriage becomes obsolete in this country, like in many of the so-called developed countries where it has become a big problem for them to protect the institution of marriage,” it said The counsel for the applicant Adnan submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC has admitted that she was having a (live-in) relationship with the applicant for one year and had physical relations with consent and got pregnant.
Thereafter, the applicant refused to marry her and an FIR was lodged against him on her complaint. She also alleged that two more persons committed offence of rape against her.
According to the ossification test report of the victim, she has been found to be 19 years of age. Therefore she is major, not minor, the counsel for the applicant argues.
“There is no medical evidence against the applicant of committing an offence under Section 316 IPC. The applicant has been in jail since 18.4.2023 and has no criminal history,” the counsel said.
The counsel for the woman opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that as per the school leaving certificate of class VIII, the victim is aged about 16 years and 8 months only.
He further submitted that the applicant may be directed to marry the victim.
The court lamented that films and TV serials being aired are contributing to eradicating the institution of marriage. The infidelity to a partner in a married relationship and having a free live-in relationship are being shown as a sign of progressive society, it said.
“There is no dearth of cases coming to the courts where the female partner of an erstwhile live-in relationship commits suicide out of disgust caused by social ill behaviour,” it said.
