Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday observed that the State cannot be expected to provide police protection to an interfaith couple solely because they wish to live together in a live-in relationship.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a 20-year-old Muslim man seeking the release of his Hindu partner from a government-run shelter home in Chembur. The woman, a major, had voluntarily left her parental home to live with the petitioner but was later placed in the shelter by police following a complaint from her parents.
The petitioner alleged in his habeas corpus plea that the woman was being illegally detained, violating her fundamental rights. The petition also sought police protection, claiming threats to their lives. He alleged that the woman was being coerced and intimidated into abandoning the relationship, despite her expressing a desire to marry him and refusing to return to her family.
Advocate Sana Raees Khan, representing the woman’s father, argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not yet reached the legal marriageable age of 21.
A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande noted that the woman was a major and “cannot be forced to stay with her parents.” However, the court questioned the practicality of granting police protection for their live-in relationship. “Who will secure her if we let her free and if she starts staying with you?” the bench asked.
The judges added that deploying police for such personal situations was impractical. “You want police force to be deployed outside your house because you want to be in a live-in relationship? As if the police have nothing better to do. What do we do practically with this scenario? Give us practical solutions,” the court remarked.
The judges also expressed concern over the misuse of state resources for individual choices that conflict with societal norms. “Don’t expect us to provide police protection to you. As if it’s the state’s obligation—they want to break the law, want freedom, and they must be guarded by the state,” the bench underlined.
Justice Dangre said they interacted with the woman and described her as a “rebel” living in a “fantasy world,” unprepared for real-life challenges. When asked about her future if the relationship ended, the woman reportedly replied, “Jee loongi main akele (I’ll live alone).” The court called her response “all filmy dialogues.”
The bench allowed the woman’s father to meet her at the shelter to ascertain if she had reconsidered her decision and inform the court by December 13. It also refused to grant custody to her partner or provide police protection.
