'Lacks Sincerity & Stability': Allahabad HC Terms Live-In Relations As 'Time-Pass'

The Allahabad High Court has observed that live-relationships are predominantly “time pass” and are characterised by a lack of stability and sincerity.

While rejecting a plea filed by an inter-faith live-in couple seeking police protection, a Bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi observed: “No doubt that the Apex Court, in a number of cases, has validated the live-in relationship but in the span of two months at a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give a serious thought to this type of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of an infatuation without any sincerity. The life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows, that such relationships are often a byword for time-pass, temporary and fragile, and as such, we are averse to giving any protection to the petitioner.”

The court was hearing a petition filed by the couple – a Hindu woman and a Muslim man – seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the latter alleging the offence of kidnapping under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by the woman's aunt.

Couple's Lawyer Argued That Woman Chose To Be In Live-In Relationship

The couple also sought police protection as they had chosen to continue their livein relationship. The counsel for the woman argued that she is over 20 years of age, has every right to decide her future and has chosen to be in a live-in relationship with the accused.

The opposing counsel contended that her partner is already facing an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. It was argued that he is a "road-Romeo" and a vagabond who has no future and, in all probability, would ruin the life of the girl.

After considering the facts of the case, the court expressed its reservations on live-in relationships. Nonetheless, the Bench made it clear that its stance should neither be misinterpreted as a judgment or endorsement of the petitioners' relationship. With these observations, the Court dismissed the plea.