It also said that until the couple decides to marry and name their relationship or show their sincerity towards each other, it “shuns and avoids expressing any opinion on such types of relationship”.

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a petition filed by an inter-faith live-in couple Seeking Police Protection, has observed that live-in relationships are primarily a form of “time pass” without any “stability or sincerity”. While saying that the Supreme Court had validated live-in relationships on several occasions, the High Court noted the tender age of the petitioners and the time spent living together to question whether it was a carefully considered decision.

The bench, consisting of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi, stated,”… in the span of two months in a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give serious thought over such types of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of infatuation against the opposite sex without any sincerity.”

It also said that until the couple decides to marry and name their relationship or show their sincerity towards each other, it “shuns and avoids expressing any opinion on such types of relationship”.

The court further remarked that live-in relationships are “temporary and fragile”. “Life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows that such types of relationships often result in timepass, temporary and fragile and, as such, we are avoiding giving any protection to the petitioner during the stage of the investigation,” the bench said.

About the petition

The couple had filed a petition seeking police protection and to cancel an FIR filed against the man by the woman’s aunt under Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel marriage) of the Indian Penal Code. The aunt had filed the case, claiming to the woman’s mother.

The aunt alleged that the man was a “road-Romeo and a vagabond” who had no future and would ruin her niece’s life. She pointed out that the man was already named in an FIR under sections of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act.

The woman, however, said she had a right to decide her future, citing her age (20). She further argued that her father had not registered a case in the matter.

After considering both sides, the court ruled that the arguments put forward by the petitioners were not adequate grounds for cancelling the FIR.