X v State of U.P, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2052,

Order dated 25-09-2023.

While declining to provide the petitioner with protection during the investigation phase, the division bench of Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrissi, JJ, stated that live-in relationships are transitory, brittle, and time-passing in a writ petition contesting the First Information Report (‘FIR’) dated 17-08-2023 under Section 366 of the Penal Code, 1860. The interfaith couple had chosen to “remain in a live-in relationship,” so the petitioners came before this court asking for protection from the police. The petitioners argued that the informant who filed this FIR is not the girl’s biological mother. She’s her aunt. The true father of the petitioner never showed up to file the FIR.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court noted that most partnerships are a “time pass” and are marked by instability and genuineness.

A bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi said, “We reject the plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking police protection.”

“While the Hon’ble Apex Court has undoubtedly upheld live-in relationships in a number of cases, we cannot expect a couple that is only 20 or 22 years old to give serious consideration to their transient relationship in the short time period of two months. As previously stated, it is more of an unsincere obsession with the opposite sex. Life isn’t always a bed of roses. Every couple is examined in light of harsh and difficult facts. Our experience indicates that these kinds of relationships are frequently fleeting and fragile, so we are refusing to offer the petitioner any protection while the matter is being looked at.

The court was considering a joint appeal from the Muslim man and Hindu woman, asking for the first information report (FIR) against the latter to be dismissed. The FIR claimed that the male had committed kidnapping in violation of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The woman’s aunt filed the complaint.

The pair decided to keep their live-in relationship going, so they also requested police protection.

The woman’s attorney contended that since she is older than twenty, she has complete autonomy over her future and has made the decision to live with the accused.

The other attorney argued that her partner is already the subject of a complaint filed in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. It was stated that he is a vagrant and a “road Romeo,” with no future and a high probability of ruining the girl’s life.

Following its review of the evidence, the Court voiced its concerns about cohabitation.

However, the Bench clarified that its position should not be construed as a ruling or support for the petitioners’ connection or as a defence against any legitimate steps carried out in compliance with the law.

The Court believes that a relationship of this kind is more about infatuation than it is about stability and honesty. The Court shuns and refrains from expressing any view in such a relationship until the couple chooses to get married, names their relationship, or proves that they are sincere with one another.

In light of these findings, the court rejected the plea.

Adv. Khanak Sharma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.