<p>The Allahabad High Court (HC) recently noted that such a relationship “is more of an infatuation and not a stable and sincere relationship, unless and until the couple decides to marry” when dealing with a request to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a Muslim man who was living with a Hindu girl.<img decoding=”async” class=”alignnone wp-image-249536″ src=”https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/theindiaprint.com-select-store-employees-will-receive-vision-pro-headset-training-from-apple-every-d.jpg” alt=”theindiaprint.com select store employees will receive vision pro headset training from apple every d” width=”1398″ height=”1047″ srcset=”https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/theindiaprint.com-select-store-employees-will-receive-vision-pro-headset-training-from-apple-every-d.jpg 259w, https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/theindiaprint.com-select-store-employees-will-receive-vision-pro-headset-training-from-apple-every-d-150×112.jpg 150w” sizes=”(max-width: 1398px) 100vw, 1398px” title=”Live-in relationships are more of an infatuation until the couple decides to be married: HC Allahabad 15″></p>
<p>Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, sitting as a division bench, stated, “No doubt that Hon’ble the Apex Court in number of cases, have validated the live-in relationship, but 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 a serious thought over their such type of temporary relationship.”</p>
<p>Life is not always rosy. Every relationship is examined in light of the harsh reality. Our experience has shown that these relationships often end up being ephemeral and weak, the bench said while declining to provide the accused any protection while the case against him is still under investigation.</p>
<p>A CASE</p>
<p>The FIR filed in August 2023 under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the Muslim man was contested by the couple by the high court in a case brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, which grants it exceptional jurisdiction. The petitioners asked for instructions to cancel the FIR and to tell the police not to detain him.</p>
<p>Before the division bench, their attorney argued that the pair required police protection since they had chosen to “remain in a live-in relationship.” The girl was described as being 20 years old.</p>
<p>When the accused lured the youngster away, the girl’s aunt, who filed the FIR, said she was worried for her safety because she thought something bad would happen to her.</p>
<p>The petitioners’ legal representative made the claim that the girl’s aunt, not her father, had filed the FIR. Additionally, it was claimed that the aunt used to abuse the child inhumanely and torment her physically.</p>
<p>QUOTES FROM THE COURT</p>
<p>The division bench, however, held that it made no difference who submitted the FIR in this particular case.</p>
<p>“The FIR’s function is to provide the police with information so they may act against known or unnamed accused parties. Whether she is the mother or her aunt, it barely matters who filed the FIR, the bench said.</p>
<p>The court further noted that the informant’s attorney (the girl’s aunt) had claimed that the accused had a problematic background and that a FIR had been filed against him in 2017 under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act. The informant’s attorney said that the accused “was a Road Romeo and vagabond who had no future for his own life, and with all certainty, he would ruin the life of the girl” at this point in the proceedings.</p>
<p>The bench said, “The Court has its own reservations regarding such a relationship and shall not be construed as passing any remark or validating such a relationship of the petitioners or protecting them from any legal proceeding instituted in accordance with law.”</p>
<p> </p>
Live-in relationships are more of an infatuation until the couple decides to be married: HC Allahabad
