Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently criticised an inter-faith couple's plea "virtually" seeking legitimization of their live-in-relationship. Court noted that the man, a Muslim by religion, was already married and had a five-year-old child with his legally wedded wife. 

The bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava observed, "The religious tenets to which the petitioner No.2 (the man) belongs to, does not permit live-in-relationship during the subsisting marriage".

"A person reposing faith in Islam cannot claim any rights in the nature of a live-in-relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse. The constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian would not lend an un-canalized support to such a right, once the usages and customs prohibit such a relationship between the two individuals of the above description," the bench held. 

Court opined that allowing the live-in relationship between the petitioner couple any further would be untenable considering the rights of the Muslim man's lawful wife and the welfare of the child born from their legal union.

"Thus, the direction for continuation of a live-in-relationship as has been prayed for in the present writ petition, the court would strongly deprecate and deny," the bench held while emphasising that "the constitutional morality and social morality in the matter of marriage institution requires to be balanced failing which social coherence for achieving the object of peace and tranquility in the society would fade and disappear".

The order was passed in a successive writ petition filed by the couple, who sought to quash a case filed against the man on April 24, 2024 by the woman's family. Additionally, they requested a direction to safeguard their lives and liberties. The petitioners asserted that they had willingly engaged in a live-in relationship. 

The couple's first writ petition was taken up by the court on April 25 but it was consigned to record as their counsel sought permission to withdraw it, with the liberty to file a fresh one later.

Through both the petitions, the petitioner-man declared that he married a Muslim lady in 2020, and they have a daughter as well. He mentioned that his first wife, due to illness, has no objection to his live-in relationship with his current partner. He also declared that he had given 'triple talaq' to his wife who was currently residing in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. 

However, the court found the man's claim untrue as it was revealed that the first wife of the petitioner was currently living with her in-laws in Mumbai. 

Court observed that the situation would have been different if the petitioners were unmarried and being major they had chosen to lead their lives in a way of their own.

The constitutional morality in that situation may come to the rescue of such a couple and the social morality settled through the customs and usages over ages may give way to the constitutional morality and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may step in to protect the cause, court said. 

It clarified that "customs and usages are an equal source of law recognized by the Constitution as the law made by the competent Legislature" and "once there is a recognition of the customs and usages as a valid law within the framework of our Constitution, even such laws become enforceable in an appropriate case".

However, it asserted that constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would not lend un-canalized support to such a right, once the usages and customs prohibit such a relationship between the two individuals as in the present case.

Court, therefore, denied any relief as sought by the petitioners. Instead, it ordered the investigating officer to escort the petitioner-woman safely to her parental home and submit a report to the court of her being handed over to her parents.

"The Court shall next go into the question of concealment of material facts and we find that the counsel appearing in the two cases has risked at his own cost to abuse the process of law. 14. To deal with such an issue, let the matter be listed before this Court on 08.05.2024," court ordered. 

Case Title: Sneha Devi And Others v. State of UP and Others