The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a plea to quash an FIR involving a live-in relationship couple, one of whom was a minor boy, and the other was a major girl. This decision has raised pertinent questions regarding live-in relationships under Indian law. In this case, the court expressed surprise that the minor boy, who was dependent on his father, wanted to be in a live-in relationship. This article explores the legal aspects of live-in relationships in India, focusing on the recent judgment by the Allahabad High Court.
Understanding Live-in Relationships in India
Live-in relationships, also known as cohabitation, have become increasingly prevalent in India, challenging traditional notions of matrimony. A live-in relationship can be defined as an arrangement where an unmarried couple, whether heterosexual or same-sex, chooses to live together under the same roof as partners without any formal or legal marriage. This union reflects a growing trend among couples who wish to explore compatibility, financial security, or simply prefer not to formalize their relationship through marriage.
Legal Perspective on Live-in Relationships
The legal status of live-in relationships in India has evolved over time, and it varies depending on the legal framework and jurisdiction. Several laws and judgments offer insights into the recognition and rights of individuals in live-in relationships.
1. Protection of Women’s Rights : The Supreme Court of India, in various judgments, has emphasized the need to protect women’s rights in live-in relationships. It has stated that when a man and a woman “lived like husband and wife” for a reasonably long period, the presumption of a valid marriage arises.
2. Domestic Violence Act, 2005 : The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides protection to women in live-in relationships. If a woman faces domestic violence, she can seek legal remedies under this Act. The definition of “domestic relationship” includes not only legally wedded wives but also women in live-in relationships who face abuse.
3. Rights to Maintenance : In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that women in live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance if the relationship meets certain conditions, including stability and public recognition. It was determined that the woman should have been In a relationship akin to marriage with the man for a reasonable duration and should have received public acknowledgment as his wife.
4. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 : While the Hindu Marriage Act primarily focuses on marriages, the 2010 amendment included live-in relationships. If a man and woman have lived together as spouses for a considerable period, they may be deemed married under this Act, granting them rights and protection akin to married couples.
5. Personal Laws and Customary Practices : Different personal laws and customary practices in India influence the status of live-in relationships. Customary practices may differ from one community or region to another, affecting the recognition of such relationships.
Allahabad High Court’s Recent Judgment
In the case of Anchal Rajbhar and Jaihind Rajbhar, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea to quash an FIR lodged against the minor boy, Jaihind, under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Anchal and Jaihind, who were in a live-in relationship, sought to quash the FIR.
The court, while dismissing the plea, expressed surprise that a minor boy who was dependent on his father wanted to be in a live-in relationship. The court noted that Anchal was 19 years old, while Jaihind was a minor and dependent on his parents.
The court held that there was no reason to quash the FIR under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, essentially rejecting the request.
The Legal Implications
The recent judgment raises several legal implications for live-in relationships in India:
1. Age of Consent : In the context of live-in relationships, the age of consent is significant. For a relationship to be legally recognized, both individuals must be of legal age, typically 18 or older, to make decisions independently. In the case of Jaihind, who was a minor, the legal implications could be different.
2. Status of Minor Parties : The judgment highlights the complex issue of live-in relationships involving a minor. India’s legal framework generally does not recognize such relationships as they involve individuals below the age of majority. The legal rights and responsibilities of minors in live-in relationships are uncertain and often dependent on the specific circumstances of the case.
3. Public Recognition : The court’s mention of the live-in relationship being dependent on “public recognition”echoes the Supreme Court’s previous judgments. Public acknowledgment is a key criterion for determining the validity of a live-in relationship, making it a challenge for couples who wish to maintain their privacy.
4. Protection under the Law : The court’s decision reflects the evolving nature of live-in relationships in Indian society. It underscores the importance of protection for individuals in such relationships, particularly when faced with legal challenges or disputes.
Live-in relationships are becoming increasingly common in India, raising complex legal questions. While the legal framework has evolved to offer some protection to individuals in live-in relationships, there is no uniform approach, and the recognition of such relationships depends on various factors. The recent judgment by the Allahabad High Court serves as a reminder that legal disputes surrounding live-in relationships can be intricate, especially when minors are involved. As live-in relationships continue to grow in India, it becomes imperative for the legal system to provide clarity and consistent guidelines to address the rights and responsibilities of those in such relationships.
