Live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of social fabric of this Country: Allahabad High Court

Credits: Hindustan Times

By - Sameeksha Negi*

The Allahabad High Court has recently rejected the plea of a married woman, seeking protection from her husband who was allegedly interfering in her live-in relationship with another man.

The bench comprising Justice Subhash Chand and Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker dismissed the petition filed by the woman and her live-in partner and imposed a cost of Rs. 5000.

In the considered opinion of the bench, granting police protection to the petitioner and her live-in partner would indirectly imply assent of the court to such illicit relationships. The married woman had filed the plea for immediate protection, stating that she was living with her live-in partner and their lives were in danger due to her husband, therefore she sought protection against him. The petitioner also alleged that she left her husband because of the apathetic and torturing behaviour of her husband.

Also Read - Delhi HC granted relief to a Christian couple who adopted a child under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act due to wrong legal advice.

The court after hearing the parties concerned said that if her husband barged into their house then a criminal complaint can be filed against him but “none law abiding citizen who is already married under the Hindu Marriage Act can seek protection of this court for illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of the social fabric of the country.”

The bench further stated that if she has any difference with her husband, she could move to get separated from her husband as per law. The court, however, clarified, “We hold that we are not against granting protection to people who want to live together irrespective of the fact as to which community, caste or sex they belong to.”

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER.

*Sameeksha Negi has completed LL.M. from IMS Unison University, Dehradun this year.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog