The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by a 29-year-old Hindu woman, who was living in a live-in relationship with a 30-year-old Muslim man, for her safety.
The Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari passed this order while hearing a petition filed by an interfaith live-in couple.
The petitioners have come before the Court praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus to be issued to the respondents not to disturb the peaceful living of the petitioners.
The relevant facts are:—
“4. That it is submitted that the petitioners due to their love and affection towards each other, decided to enter into a live-in relationship.
5. That it is relevant to point out here that the petitioner No1 is aged about 29 years and the petitioner No2 is aged about 30 years being major in age, living with each other due to their prolonged love and affection. A copy of Birth certificate issued by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, showing the age of the petitioners.
6. It is submitted that as per information of the petitioners no F.I.R has been lodged against them.
7. That the local Police is harassing the petitioner No 2 and his family members as the petitioner No1 is living with the petitioner No 2 in live-in-relation.
8. It is submitted that the petitioners are presently living at a rental house in Triveni Nagar area which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station- Hasanganj, Lucknow.
9. That it is submitted that no one can make any hindrance in the personal life and liberty of the petitioners but the police on behest of the opposite party no 4 harass the petitioners as they both belong to different religions but are majorly living together in live-in-relationship.
10. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered with the case of Lata Singh Versus State of U.P & another, AIR 2006 SC 2522.”
It has been stated that the petitioner no 1(wife) is major and is a Hindu and the petitioner no 2 Mohammed Rizwan is also major and a Muslim by faith. They love each other and have started living together. The mother of the petitioner no 1, however, is unhappy with this relationship and has approached the Police, who constantly harass the petitioners and disturb their peaceful life. That the petitioners wish to marry in the near future is not stated in the writ petition.
It has also not been stated for how long the petitioners have enjoyed this live-in-relationship. The petitioners have not stated their current marital status. They have also not stated anywhere in the petition any specific instance of the police coming and knocking their doors or taking them to the police station. There is no averment in the writ petition regarding their neighbours and the society in general recognizing them as enjoying a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Petitioners have come up to this court with a mere allegation, which has not been substantiated by any specific pleading and have prayed that this court should issue a mandamus to the police not to harass them.
The Court found that the petition is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner no 1 stating herself to be major and in support of her claim filing a copy of her Aadhaar Card. Mohammed Rizwan, the petitioner no 2 has not filed any Affidavit. It has not been stated by Mohammed Rizwan that he is major and otherwise competent to marry the petitioner no 1. In the array of the petitioners, they have mentioned two different addresses. No details of common current address has been disclosed in the writ petition except for stating that the petitioners are living in a rented accommodation at Trivedi Nagar under Police Station Hasan Ganj, Lucknow.
The Court noted that,
Following the ratio of the aforecited Lata Singh and S Khushboo judgements of the Supreme Court, this Court has delivered several judgements stating that if the petitioners are major and otherwise competent to enter into contract, no fetter can be placed upon the choice of person with whom she is to stay nor anyone can restrict her. No person can be allowed to threaten or commit or instigate acts of violence or harass adult persons who undergo inter-caste or inter religious marriage. The administration/police authorities can be directed to see to it that the couple, upon being otherwise major and eligible, to contract, should not be harassed by anyone. It has also been observed in some judgments that living in a relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence.
Against this background, the petitioners have approached this court praying for the aforesaid mandamus to be issued to the respondents.
Normally, in such type of writ petitions, the courts call upon the counsel appearing for the petitioners to identify the petitioners that is the boy and girl having been present before the Court and to verify the documents available before the court or it adopts other methods like verification of Aadhaar cards, age proof if any, or directs ossification test etc to find out the truth of the statements made on oath in the Writ petition.
However, in this case petitioners do not state that they are a validly married couple. They do not claim for protection of the marital relationship which is allegedly being interfered with by their parents or relatives who are private respondents.
The petitioners only allege that they being major are entitled to live with whomever they like and the mother of petitioner No 1 is unhappy with this relationship.
“Writ jurisdiction being extraordinary jurisdiction is not made to resolve such a dispute between two private parties. We believe that it is a social problem which can be uprooted socially and not by the intervention of the Writ Court in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless harassment is established beyond doubt.
“If there is any real grievance of a live-in couple against their parents or relatives who are allegedly interfering with their live-in status which goes to such an extent that there is a threat of life, they are at liberty to lodge an F.I.R under Section 154 (1) or Section 154 (3) CrPC, with the Police, move an application under Section 156 (3) before the competent Court or file a complaint case under Section 200 CrPC.
Similarly, in case the parents or relatives find that illegally their son or daughter has eloped for the purpose of marriage, although he or she is underage or not inclined or the respondents are behaving violently, they are equally at liberty to take steps in a similar manner.
But, when neither of the actions are taken against each other, and only a fictitious application with certain allegations, particularly by such persons as the petitioners herein enjoying a live-in relationship, is moved under Writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it appears to be a circuitous way to get the seal and signature of the High Court upon their conduct without any verification of their age and other necessary aspects required to be done by the appropriate authority.
“We cannot allow the petitioners to raise disputed questions of fact under Writ jurisdiction as it would be a wrong assumption of such extraordinary jurisdiction”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.