The Allahabad High Court, in a ruling that denied police protection to an interfaith live-in couple, remarked that such relationships are often characterized by "infatuation" rather than sincerity, and frequently amount to "timepass."
While acknowledging that the Supreme Court has recognized live-in relationships in various cases, a division bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohammad Azhar Husain Idrisi noted that, in this instance, the couple, aged 20-22, had not had sufficient time or maturity to seriously consider a temporary relationship within just two months.
"Unless and until the couple decide to marry and give a name to their relationship, and are sincere towards each other, the court shuns and avoids to express (sic) any opinion about such relationships," the bench added.
Reportedly the petitioners' counsel had stated "in the opening arguments itself" that the couple "are in torrid affair with each other (sic)" and that petitioner No. 2 had "enticed away the girl..."
According to the Times Of India, the bench on September 25 said, "It is more of infatuation against opposite sex without any sincerity. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often result in timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation (sic)."
The case revolves around a joint petition filed by a young Hindu woman and a Muslim man. They are challenging an FIR registered against the young man by the woman's aunt under IPC Section 366, accusing him of kidnapping. In their plea, the couple also requested police protection as they had opted for a live-in relationship.
The woman's lawyer argued that she was of legal age, being over 20 years old, and had the autonomy to make decisions about her future. She had chosen the second petitioner as her boyfriend and wished to pursue a live-in relationship with him.
Conversely, the informant's counsel who is also her aunt, opposed the plea, asserting that the woman's partner was already facing an FIR under Sections 2/3 of the UP Gangsters Act. She said that "he was a road Romeo and a vagabond who has no future and, in all certainty, he would ruin the girl's life".
