Case Title:- Raksha And Another Versus State Of Up And 4 Others
Case No :- WRIT – C No. – 1546 of 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Mrs. Renu Agarwal
Facts of the case:
Renu Agarwal, J. stated that petitioner 1 is living with petitioner 2 in a live-in relationship after having a legally wedded husband without filing for divorce from a court of competent jurisdiction. This was stated in a writ petition filed to direct the police authorities to provide police protection to petitioners against the husband and parents of petitioner 1. Petitioners stated that petitioner 1’s parents had married her off while she was a minor, 13 years old. Because petitioner 1’s marriage is null and void, she freely chooses to live in union with petitioner 2 against her will. The state has argued that petitioner 1 is already married, that her marriage has not been ruled unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the court cannot accept a live-in relationship between her and petitioner 2.
Contentions:
The petitioners sought police protection against interference in their live-in relationship and from the family of one petitioner. They also requested direction for the family not to interfere in their relationship. The petitioners argued that one petitioner was married at a young age, but the marriage was invalid, and she was voluntarily in a live-in relationship with the other petitioner
The respondent argued that one of the petitioners was already legally married and living in a live-in relationship with the other petitioner, which the court cannot support. The respondent cited a previous court decision disapproving of such relationships and emphasized that protecting illegal relationships would disrupt societal norms. The court dismissed the petition, stating that endorsing illicit relations through protection would be detrimental to societal values and clarified its stance against illegal relationships while not opposing live-in relationships in general.
Court Analysis and Judgement:
The court dismissed the writ petition seeking police protection for a couple in a live-in relationship, if they protect illegal relationships then it will create chaos in the society .If court grant permission for protection it indirectly supports illegal relationships. The court does not deem it proper to permit the parties to such illegality as tomorrow petitioners may convey that this court sanctified their illicit relations. Living in live in relationship cannot be at the cost of social fabric of this country. It is clarified that this court has not been against live in relationship but us it is against illegal relations. Granting protection might indirectly approve of unlawful relationships, which the court cannot be done. The court clarified its sentence against illegal relationships while not being opposed to live-in relationships in general. The petitioners, one of whom was legally married, had not sought a divorce, making their live-in arrangement unlawful under Hindu Law, highlighting the importance of upholding legal relationships and the sanctity of marriage.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 Years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category Of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, Best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.
Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
