Date of Order:
28 April 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon’ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Parties:
Petitioner :- Kiran Rawat And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
SUBJECT
- The petitioners have petitioned the Court for a mandamus writ to be issued to the respondents so that they refrain from disturbing their peaceful existence.
- The High court while denying protection stated that administration and police authorities must prevent harassment of couples, and it's not criminal to engage in relationships between consenting adults. Issues must be resolved through amicable means without violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
IMPORTANT PROVISION
- Article 21 - No one shall be deprived of their life or freedom of choice except in accordance with the legal procedure.
OVERVIEW
- The petitioners, driven by their deep love and affection for each other, made the decision to live together in a live-in relationship. It is important to note that petitioner No.1 is approximately 29 years old, and petitioner No.2 is approximately 30 years old, both adults.
- A copy of the birth certificates issued by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, verifying the petitioners' ages, is attached as per annexure No.1.
- The petitioners affirm that no First Information Report (F.I.R.) has been filed against them, as per their knowledge.
- Because of petitioner No. 1’s presence in the live-in relationship with petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 2 and his family members are being harassed by the local police after the former’s mother complaint of the same.
- The petitioners currently live in a rented home in Trivedi Nagar, Lucknow, which is under the authority of the Hasanganj Police Station.
- It is argued that the petitioners' private affairs and freedoms cannot be hindered by anyone, yet the police, guided by opposing party no. 4, are targeting them just because they belong to different faiths.
- In addition, it is claimed that the petitioners' case is very similar to the standard set by Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & another, AIR 2006 SC 2522.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS
- The petitioners argue that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lata Singh versus state of UP and another (2006) highlights the caste system’s curse on the nation and its division. Inter-caste marriages are in the national interest, but disturbing news suggests that young men and women are being threatened with violence or committed to violence. They state that such acts are illegal and must be severely punished.
- In S.Khushboo vs Kaniammal the Supreme Court has ruled that living together without marriage is not an offense, as there is no law prohibiting premarital sex or relationships. Living together is considered a right to life.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent's perspective states that the writ petition does not mention the petitioners' intention to marry, their live-in relationship duration, marital status, police intervention incidents, or the recognition of their relationship as akin to marriage by neighbors or society.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court supports the writ petition by the petitioner's affidavit stating she is major and filing an Aadhaar Card. Mohammed Rizwan has not filed any affidavit and does not claim to be major or competent to marry the petitioner.
- In S. Khushboo Vs. Kaniammal, 2010 (5) SCC 600, The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant merely referred to the increasing incidence of premarital sex and called for its societal acceptance. The respondents claimed that the appellant's remarks could misguide young people by encouraging them to engage in premarital sex. The court noted that there is no legal injury to adults engaging in sexual relations outside the marital setting, except for adultery under section 49 7IPC.
- Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) emphasized the importance of adequate protection for women and children born from live-in relationships. The law cannot promote premarital sex, and separate legislation is needed to address standards of dependency and vulnerability.
- The Supreme Court has ruled that section 125 Cr.P.C. does not apply to maintenance claims for live-in partners, as it does not extend the meaning of the term "wife" to include live-in partners. Marriages are governed by personal laws or the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Hindu marriages are considered a sacrament, while Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Parsi marriages are contracts.
- Muslim law prohibits sex outside marriage, specifically "Zina," which includes extramarital and premarital sex. Sexual acts like kissing, touching, and staring are considered "Haram" before marriage, leading to actual "Zina."
- The Supreme Court has issued several judgments stating that if petitioners are major and competent, no restrictions can be placed on their choice of partner. No person can threaten, commit, or harass adult persons in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages.
- Administration/police authorities should ensure that couples are not harassed. Living in a relationship between consenting adults of heterogenic sex is not considered an offense.
- Writ jurisdiction is not designed to resolve disputes between private parties, and it is a social problem that can be resolved socially without violating Article 21 of the Constitution. If a live-in couple has a genuine grievance against their parents or relatives, they can lodge an FIR, apply to the police, or file a complaint.
- A false application by live-in partners wanting approval via the High Court without checking age and facts is regarded as a diversion. Under a Writ, the petitioners cannot argue controversial factual questions as it would be a mistake of exceptional ability.
CONCLUSION
- To conclude, the writ petition was denied.
- It was observed that the law has traditionally been in support of marriage and that even our Supreme Court had no intention of undoing the traditional fabric of Indian households when it made statements on live-in relationships in various decisions.
