The Allahabad high court has observed that live-in relationships are ‘time pass’, lacking ‘stability’ and sincerity.

The high court bench comprising justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi was hearing a petitioned filed jointly by a couple, a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, seeking police protection. The petition sought quashing of the first information report (FIR) against the male partner alleging the offence of kidnapping under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, legal website Bar and Bench reported. The complaint was filed by the woman’s aunt.

While mentioning that the Supreme Court had validated live-in relationships, the high court bench observed,”No doubt that Hon’ble the Apex Court in number of cases, have validated the live-in relationship but in the span of two months in a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give a serious though over their such type of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of infatuation against (sic) opposite sex without any sincerity”.

“The life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities”, the bench was quoted by the website as saying. It added,”Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often result into timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation.”

The couple had also sought police protection as they opted to continue their live-in relationship. The woman’s lawyer argued in court that she is above 20 years of age and has every right to decide her future. The woman had chosen to be in a live-in relationship with the accused, the lawyer added.

However, the opposing counsel argued that her partner is facing an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. The lawyer argued that the man is a “road-romeo and a vagabond who has no future and in all certainty, would ruin the life of the girl”.

According to the Bar and Bench report, the high court while expressing its reservations regarding live-in relationships made it clear that its stance should neither be “misinterpreted as a judgment or endorsement of the petitioners’ relationship nor as a safeguard against any lawful actions taken in accordance with the law”.

The court observed that such type of a relationship is more of an infatuation than to have stability and sincerity.

“Unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name of their relationship or they are sincere towards each other, the Court shuns and avoid to express any opinion in such type of relationship”, the bench observed as per the website report, and dismissed the plea.