Muslims cannot claim right to live-in relationship; against their customary law: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently said that a person professing Islam cannot claim the right to live-in relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse..A division bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava reasoned that when marital behaviour of citizens are regulated under both statutory and personal laws, the customs are bound to be given equal significance.“The customs and usages are an equal source of law recognized by the Constitution as the law made by the competent Legislature. Once there is a recognition of the customs and usages as a valid law within the framework of our Constitution, even such laws become enforceable in an appropriate case,” the Court said..It added that the constitutional protection under Article 21 would not lend an “un-canalized support” to the right to live-in relationship when the usages and customs prohibit such relations between the two individuals.“A person reposing faith in Islam cannot claim any rights in the nature of a live-in-relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse,” the Court said..The Court made the observations while hearing a petition seeking quashing of a kidnapping case against a man and a direction to not interfere in the relationship of a Hindu-Muslim couple. However, the Court noted that the couple had filed a petition earlier too for the protection of their liberty. From the record, the Court found the Muslim man was already married to a Muslim woman with a five-year-old daughter..It also noted that the Court was told that Muslim man’s wife had no objection to his live-in relationship as she was suffering from certain ailments.In the latest petition, the Court was told the man has given triple talaq to the wife.On April 29, the Court directed the Police to produce the Muslim man’s wife and also asked him and his live-in partner to remain present. A day later, the Court was apprised about some “alarming” facts.It was told that the man’s wife was not residing in Uttar Pradesh as claimed by him but in Mumbai with her in-laws..The Court said the petition seeking quashing of the kidnapping case was one which actually sought legitimization of the live-in relationship between the Hindu woman and the Muslim man.“This relief is sought in a situation where petitioner No.2 belonging to a different religion is already married and has a minor child of five years of age. The religious tenets to which the petitioner No.2 belongs to, does not permit live-in-relationship during the subsisting marriage.”The Court opined that the position may be different if they two persons are unmarried and being major, choose to lead their lives in a way of their own.“The constitutional morality in that situation may come to the rescue of such a couple and the social morality settled through the customs and usages over ages may give way to the constitutional morality and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may step in to protect the cause”..Thus, the Court said any further continuation of the live-in relationship cannot be granted while looking at the rights of the wife as well as the interest of the minor child.The constitutional morality and social morality in the “matter of marriage institution” are required to be balanced. Otherwise social coherence for achieving the object of peace and tranquility in the society would fade and disappear, the Court said.“Thus, the direction for continuation of a live-in-relationship as has been prayed for in the present writ petition, the Court would strongly deprecate and deny notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional protection remains available to a citizen of India,” the order stated..The Court, therefore, directed the police to escort the man’s live-in partner to her parents' home and submit a report regarding it. “The Court shall next go into the question of concealment of material facts and we find that the counsel appearing in the two cases has risked at his own cost to abuse the process of law,” the Bench said while listing the matter for further hearing on May 8.Advocates Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi, Devendra Verma, Kajol and Tanupriya represented the petitioner.Advocate SP Singh represented the State.Advocate Suyansh Kumar Pandey represented the complainant.