Allahabad High Court refuses relief to live-in couple since woman married to another man; imposes ₹5,000 costs

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant protection to a live-in couple on the ground that the woman was already married to someone else, and the period of cohabitation between the two petitioners was very less [Sunita Devi v State of UP]..A bench of Justices Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi observed that while the Constitution may permit live-in relationships, the present petition was filed with the object of obtaining the Court's seal on an illegal relationship."Saying that India is governed by Constitution of India and we are not living in primitive days makes no difference as in the present case it cannot be said that petitioners are living as husband and wife....We have occasion to deal with grant of protection to two persons of the same gender. Constitution of India may permit live-in relation but, this writ petition is nothing else but filed with a purpose of obtaining seal of this Court on their illegal relationship," the bench recorded. .Personal autonomy rather than notion of social morality could be looked into but not if the period of cohabitation was less, said the Court. .The petitioners had moved the Court seeking a writ of mandamus from the High Court directing the respondents to refrain from harassing them.The petitioner was married to one of the respondents, and had children with him. As per the complaint, she left her husband after he asked her to have illicit relations with his friends. .The Court considered the judgment in Indra Sarma v VK Sarma which was relied on by the petitioner, stating that the same was contrary to the petitioners' stand. "Paragraph 52 of the said judgment categorically mentions that live-in relation as such is a relation which has not been socially accepted in India unlike many other countries," the division bench noted. .The Court took into account that the time period of the petitioners' cohabitation was not disclosed, and there was nothing on record to show when her husband threatened them. "List of dates and events goes to show that the petitioner No.1 has come with an incorrect facts deliberately as her complaint has not culminated into F.I.R. being lodged," the Court opined. .Although, the Court conceded that even a person alleged of commission of any offence, if threatened, could pray for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution, in the case at hand, there was no threat perception and no complaint was made to the police authority.Hence, the petition was dismissed with costs of ₹5,000 on the petitioner..It was clarified that if the petitioner move police authorities with genuine grievances or threat to her life, they may do the needful on verifying all facts narrated by her previously. .The petitioner was represented by Advocate Shyam Shankar Mishra. .Even previously, the Allahabad High Court had denied protection to a live-in couple after noting that the woman was married to another person and the Court could not, therefore, permit "illegality"..Pertinently, the Rajasthan High Court in September 2021, emphasised that the perceptions of societal or public morality could not stand in the way of protecting couples in live-in relationships, even if one of the partners is married to another.Whereas, the Rajasthan High Court in another judgment from August 2021, refused to extend police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship noting that since the woman was already married, and granting protection to the couple may indirectly amount to giving the Court’s assent to such illicit relations..In another illustration of contrasting judgments on this point of law, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case ordered the police to provide protection to a live-in couple despite the man still being married to another person. In another order, the court refused to issue directions to the State to grant police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship since the woman was already married to another person..[Read Order]