Minor accused of kidnapping major girl cannot seek protection from prosecution citing live-in relationship with her: Allahabad High Court

A child cannot be in a live-in relationship as that would be immoral and illegal, observed the Allahabad High Court recently while rejecting a plea to protect a 17-year-old boy from criminal prosecution initiated allegedly on account of his live-in relationship with a 19-year-old girl. [Saloni Yadav and Anr vs State of UP and Ors.].Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Rajendra Kumar-IV held that the accused boy, being below 18 years of age (a minor), could not seek protection from criminal prosecution on charges of kidnapping a major girl on the ground that the two were in a live-in relationship..The Court added that even generally, live-in relationships have not been given any "protective umbrella under any law" and that the protection, if any, is only extended to two adults in such a relationship. ."There can be no dispute that a child cannot have live in relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal as by itself live in relationship has not been given any protective umbrella under any law of the land except that two major persons have right to live their own life and to that extent their personal liberty is to be protected," the Court said..In this context, the Court held that a minor person - who cannot get legal protection for a live-in relationship because he is a child - also cannot "come forward to seek protection from any criminal prosecution on the ground of such relationship.".The Court was hearing a plea filed by a 19 year-old-woman and her 'live-in' partner, who was a 17-year-old boy.A criminal case was filed against the boy, accusing him of kidnapping the 19-year-old woman. This prompted the couple (petitioners) to file a petition before the High Court to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against boy under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her to marry) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The counsel for the petitioners claimed that the woman left her house voluntarily and that no offence was made out against the boy. However, the counsel admitted that the boy was a 17-year-old minor..Notably, a habeas corpus plea was also filed after the the woman and the boy were taken away by the woman's family. The woman somehow managed to escape, while the boy remained with the woman's family, the Court was told by the petitioners. .On the contrary, counsel for the informant argued that the offence of kidnapping was made out against the boy and that the matter required investigation. He added that the habeas corpus plea was filed on false grounds..The Court noted that the boy was Muslim and reiterated that under Muslim Law, live-in relationships are not permitted, as also recently observed by the High Court's bench at Lucknow in Kiran Rawat and Anr. v State of UP and Ors.Further, the Court underlined that the apex court in D Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal had held that the 'relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage, which required both the parties to be of legal age to marry.Thereafter, the High Court noted that under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act, any person below 18 years of age is considered a child. As such, the Court opined that the boy could not have a live-in relationship that was protected by law. In any case, whether the act of abduction made out or not against the accused boy was a matter of investigation , the Court concluded. .The Court proceeded to dismiss the plea, while opining that it is not a fit case for the Court to exercise its extraordinary powers under its writ jurisdiction. .[Read Order]