Concept Of Live-In-Relationship Against Interest Of Women: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has remarked that the concept of live-in-relationship is against the settled law in the Indian Middle Class Society and interest of women.
The Court was considering a Bail Application filed in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 61(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
The Bench of Justice Siddharth observed, “..These cases are coming to the Court because the concept of live-in-relationship is against the settled law in the Indian Middle Class Society. The concept of live- in relationship goes against the interest of the women since a man can marry even after live-in-relationship a woman or number of women but it is difficult for the women to find a life partner after a breakup. The concept of live-in-relationship has attracted the young generation allot but its after affects are seeing in the case like the present case.”
The Applicant was represented by Advocate Satish Chandra Singh, while the Respondent was represented by the Government Advocate.
Facts of the Case
It was alleged that the Applicant committed the offence of rape of Prosecutrix on false promise of marriage. She had gone with the Applicant to a number of places, but it was alleged that Applicant refused to marry her. This led to the filing of a complaint and the Applicant’s arrest, and he has remained in jail since February.
Counsel for the informant submitted that the Applicant committed the offence which will ruin the entire life of the victim since no one will marry her.
Reasoning By Court
The Court remarked that after live-in-relationship has been legalized by the Apex Court, the Court is “fed up” with such cases, the root cause of which lies in non-alignment with the laws already established in the Indian Middle Class Society.
It went to grant bail to the Applicant and observed, “Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677. and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.”
The Application was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Shane Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others (2025:AHC:99430)
