The Allahabad High Court refused to give protection to a woman and her lover, saying the Constitution may permit live-in relation but the petition has been filed to obtain the seal of the Court on their illegal relationship.
The Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Smt Sunita Devi and another.
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners seeking protection of their lives and liberties as they are major and by way of the writ petition, the petitioners has prayed for following reliefs:
“A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to harass or take any coercive action in any manner against the petitioners and also not to interfere in the peaceful living of the petitioners as husband and wife.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding and directing the respondent No 3 not to harass and interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioners.
C. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which the Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
D. Award the cost to the petitioners.”
The Court noted,
Facts and chronology of events show that the petitioner No1, Smt Sunita Devi, was married to respondent No 3, Ranveer Singh as per her own version on 6.5.2010 and there are children born out of the said wedlock. Her husband is serving in a poultry farm. It is her version that she was being harassed as he had come into contact with bad elements and used to come home only at midnight. When she complained to her parents, they scolded him, thereafter, the situation was pacified for some months but, again he started doing the same. On 7.9.2021, he came with his friends and wanted her to have illicit relations with his friends which she refused and at night, when her husband and children were sleeping, she left the matrimonial home.
This all has been stated in the complaint dated 1.9.2021 written to Superintendent of Police, Etawah.
The Court said,
We are unable to reconcile as to how the incident of 7.9.2021 can be narrated in a complaint dated 1.9.2021. There was no mention whether the same was posted to the police authority or not. Be that as it may, immediately thereafter, on 22.10.2021, this writ petition was filed.
Till September 2021, she was with respondent No 3 and daughters. Since when petitioner No 1 and petitioner No 2 are living as husband and wife is not disclosed. When did the husband, respondent No 3, threaten their relation is also not disclosed. A similar situation arose before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Himani and another vs State of Haryana, decided on 26.11.2021 where the length of live-in-relationship was not even mentioned. In our case also, there is no indication as to when the petitioners started living together. Petitioner No 1 wants to live with petitioner No 2 without taking proper divorce and/or she does not even want to have marital relationship with respondent No 3 and no reasons have been assigned for such a drastic step.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in Indra Sarma vs V.K Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309. The judgment cited by the petitioner is about believing in a relationship where there is domestic violence perpetrated and defence is taken that there was no marriage.
The Court further said,
In the light of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the relationship outside the matrimony has also to be recognized under Indian law. The said judgment categorically mentions that live-in relation as such is a relation which has not been socially accepted in India unlike many other countries.
Thus, saying that India is governed by Constitution of India and we are not living in primitive days makes no difference as in the case it cannot be said that petitioners are living as husband and wife and it is evident from the record and submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of petitioner No1, Sunita Devi, with respondent No 3, Ranveer Singh, has not yet been dissolved. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show as to when the respondent No 3 threatened her while being in live-in-relation as till September, 2021 she says that she was with her husband and children.
We have occasion to deal with grant of protection to two persons of the same gender. The Constitution of India may permit live-in relation but, this writ petition is nothing else but filed with a purpose of obtaining seal of this Court on their illegal relationship.
The Court held,
Constitutional mandate will not permit us to pass orders which cannot be passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have determined whether there is any act, omission or conduct of the respondent which would permit us to issue direction of no coercive action or granting protection. List of dates and events goes to show that the petitioner No 1 has come with incorrect facts deliberately as her complaint has not culminated into FIR being lodged. We are not even made aware whether the said complaint was posted or not, reason being, this writ petition has been filed immediately namely on 22/23.10.2021 and then there is no prolonged cohabitation of live in relation as contended in the ground of petition as according to her, she left matrimonial home leaving behind her husband and children on 07.9.2021. This is a gray area which police will have to investigate. The domestic relationship as defined by the Apex Court in the case of Indra Sarma (Supra) will not apply to the facts of this case.
The said decision also goes contrary to the contention raised by the petitioner. However, we believe that even a person alleged of commission of any offence, if threatened with dire consequences of life, he/she can pray for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The factual scenario will not permit us to grant prayer ‘A’ as it would be against the very tenets of marital life of people. Personal autonomy rather than the notion of social morality can be looked into but not at the stage when there is less period of cohabitation. There is no threat perception and no such complaint has been made to the police authority.
The Court also said, in the case, nothing is demonstrated that the husband, respondent No 3, has even remotely threatened this relationship. The threatening, if any, can be culled out is, of the incident narrated in the complaint dated 1.9.2021. The police would investigate this if at all there is semblance of truth in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the Court dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs 5,000/- because there is no threat perception as prayed by petitioners from respondent No 3. The Constitution of India does not permit us to issue mandamus when there is no threat perception alleged or transpired.
“However, if the petitioner No 1 moves the Police authorities showing that she has genuine grievances or threat to her life, the police authority may do the needful after verification of all facts as narrated by her in the complaint made in September, 2021 to Superintendent of Police, Etawah,” the order reads.