The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a child cannot have a live-in relationship, as this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal. The court stressed that though there is no law that prohibits a live-in relationship, a boy under the age of 18 cannot be permitted to have such a relationship.
“There are several conditions for a live-in relationship to be treated as a relationship in the nature of marriage. In any case, the person has to be major, ie, 18 years of age, although he may not be of marriageable age, ie, 21 years,” the court said.
The high court was dealing with a writ petition moved by a 19-year-old Hindu girl seeking directions to quash a case registered against her 17-year-old Muslim live-in partner, under sections of the IPC pertaining to abduction. The counsel for the couple argued that the girl was a major and had voluntarily left her home and, therefore, there was no case of abduction. Moreover, the counsel told the court that the couple had lived together for 15 days but were caught by the girl’s family. Though the girl managed to escape, the boy remains in the illegal custody of the girl’s family, the counsel added.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Rajendra Kumar observed that the high court, in Kiran Rawat and another vs State of UP and others (2023), has already noted that live-in relationships are not permitted under Muslim law.
Further, the bench stated that the POCSO Act is gender-neutral and, as such, the definition of a child would apply to a male as well as to a female and, if the male is below 18 years of age, he will also be treated as a child.
In addition to that, the bench said by itself live-in relationship has not been given any protective umbrella under any law of the land except that two major persons have the right to live their own life and, to that extent, their personal liberty is to be protected.
Taking note of the facts in the case at hand, the court held that an accused below 18 years of age cannot seek protection on the grounds of a live-in relationship with a major girl.
“In case this is permitted, this would amount to putting premium on an illegal activity and, thus, will not be in the interest of our society and we are not inclined to put a seal of approval on such legally impermissible activities,” the court observed.
While stressing whether abduction, as given under Section 366 of the IPC, was committed by the boy or not was yet to be ascertained by investigators; the court dismissed the plea to quash the case.
Comments
0 comment