Courtesy: Sudeep Kothavade
The Allahabad High Court faces significant challenges while dealing with matters related to police protection for inter-caste marriage couples and those in live-in relationships. These challenges are compounded by the socio-cultural dynamics of Indian society and the legal complexities introduced by laws such as the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, which adds a layer of legal scrutiny over religious conversions often associated with interfaith marriages. This legislation, designed to prevent forced conversions, has raised concerns about potential misuse to target couples, who are entering into consensual interfaith relationships.
Under what jurisdiction are matters heard regarding Couple Security by the Allahabad High Court?
To agitate matters pertaining to Couple Security before the Allahabad High Court, the extraordinary remedy of Writ Jurisdiction is invoked as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Since caste and religion-based identities have significant strength in society, personal autonomy is endangered which needs to be protected, and reliefs to the same effect are sought from the Allahabad High Court under Writ jurisdiction.
Who can file a Writ petition before the Allahabad High Court to seek protection/ Security?
The Aggrieved Person may approach the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court to seek protection/ security from the individuals who are harassing, or committing violence against the aggrieved persons.
However, in various cases, protection can also be sought while challenging a First Information Report filed against the aggrieved persons. In other cases, Habeas Corpus Writ Petitions are filed wherein protection is provided. Hence, the Allahabad High Court, under the Writ Jurisdiction, can grant relief if the facts are found to be accurate.
What is the legal position of Live-in Relationships in India?
Live-in relationships are relationships where two consenting adults live together without getting married. Unlike marriage, live-in relationships don’t have legal obligations. For eg., there’s no need for registration, and ending the relationship doesn’t require a formal divorce process. The said relationships are not illegal in India and are protected by the Right to life with liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The legality of live-in relationships was first recognized by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Payal Sharma vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Agra wherein a distinction between law and morality was made, and it was held that an unmarried man and a woman living together was not a crime even if it is a subject of taboo within Indian society.
What factors has the Allahabad High Court laid down that need to be considered for providing Police Protection to individuals in a live-in relationship?
To examine the conditions that have been laid down, we need to look at the factors that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court considers in such matters.
In the case of Kamini Devi and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others, the Hon’ble High Court while granting protection to the petitioners held as follows:
“Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. As right to life is a fundamental right insured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in which it is provided that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty.”
The Hon’ble Court while providing police protection needs to scrutinize the relevant fact that none of the parties to the live-in relationship are already married.
In Smt. Aneeta and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the writ petition with the exemplary cost of Rs. 5000/-, and held,
“This Court has already disapproved such act in Writ-C No. 11295 of 2021, Smt. Premwati and another Vs. State of U.P. and others. We hold that we are not against granting protection to people who want to live together irrespective of the fact as to which community, caste or sex they belong to. If Devendra Kumar, who is legally wedded husband of petitioner no.1 has barged into the house of petitioner no.2, it is in the realm of criminal dispute for which she can move to the criminal machinery available in the country. But none law abiding citizen who is already married under the Hindu Marriage Act can seek protection of this Court for illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of social fabric of this country. The sanctity of marriage pre-supposes divorce. If she has any difference with her husband, she has first to move for getting separated from her spouse as per law applicable to the community if Hindu Law does not apply to her.”
Similarly, in Pooja Kumari And Another versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India was filed by the petitioners with prayer for issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. The Hon’ble Court while dismissing the said petition held,
“The Court cannot support such type of relationship which are in contravention of law. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, if spouse of a person is alive or before obtaining decree of divorce a persons cannot get married with another person. If such type of relationship gets the support of Court, it will create chaos in the society and will destroy the social fabric of our country.“
Hence, as per the settled law, the Hon’ble High Court generally looks at the following factors:
- Whether the parties are major (above 18 years of age)
- Whether the parties are residing consensually or are willing to reside with each other
- Whether the relationship of the parties contravenes any law or not
- Whether the Parties are actually suffering from any injury
- Whether any other remedy would be more efficacious
This is not an exhaustive list. A plethora of different circumstances calls for the examination of different factors by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.
Whether, in cases where an adult couple faces harassment and seeks Police Protection, the requirement for marriage registration is necessary for granting protection, and whether the police can demand proof of registration to extend such protection?
In cases where an adult couple faces harassment and seeks police protection, the requirement for marriage registration should not be necessary for granting such protection. The primary concern should be whether the individuals are of legal age and willing to live together without coercion. The same has been upheld in Omshree And Another vs. State of U.P..
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held as follows:
“In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners. The petitioners shall apply for registration of their marriage before the Registrar of Marriages under Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within ten days from today, failing which this order stands automatically vacated”
What has the Hon’ble Apex Court held concerning those people who harass couples who have undergone inter-caste marriages or inter-religious marriages?
In the landmark judgment of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, the Hon’ble Apex Court has rightly directed all police/ administration authorities to afford protection to consenting adults who have undergone inter-caste or inter-religious marriages from harassment, violence, and threats.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. We sometimes hear of `honour’ killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.”
What remedies does Allahabad High Court provide for if the rights of individuals in couple matters are not adequately protected by law enforcement agencies?
The rights of individuals in interfaith relationships are not always adequately protected by law enforcement agencies in cases involving societal or familial pressure. Hence, in such cases, the Allahabad High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned law enforcement agencies to ensure the protection of the couple.
In Smt Naziya Ansari And Another Vs. State Of Up And 2 Others, the Allahabad High Court encountered a similar situation, and ordered as below:
17. In addition, we issue a mandamus to the S.P. Siddharthnagar and the Station House Officer, Police Station-Bansi, District-Siddharthnagar to ensure that the first petitioner goes wherever she likes and stays with whomsoever she wants, without any hinderance from or any other member of her family. It will also be the duty of the S.P. Siddharthnagar and the Station House Officer, Police Station-Bansi, District- Siddharthnagar, to ensure that Mohd. Jaheer or any other member of the first petitioner’s family, do not harm her, in any manner, whatsoever.
18. In the event, any harm or injury comes to the first petitioner then the S.P. Siddharthnagar and the Station House Officer, Police Station-Bansi, Siddharthnagar, would be personally answerable to this Court.
What is the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s take on providing Police Protection to individuals who are in a live-in relationship provided that, one of the parties to the said relationship belongs to the Muslim religion?
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has refrained from providing Police Protection to individuals who are in a live-in relationship, and one of the individuals in the said relationship is Muslim. This has been laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Kiran Rawat vs. State of U.P.
The said ratio-decidendi was used as a precedent in disposing of the writ petition filed for gaining Police Protection in the case of Chanda Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others.
However, this is a contentious issue, and several other factors also exist that may play a deciding role before the Hon’ble Court.
Conclusion
While the judiciary has recognized the right of adults to choose their life partners and live together freely under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the implementation of these rights by law enforcement often falls short, especially in the context of interfaith relationships or live-in partnerships.
Hence, the grievance must be established in the Writ Petition. Vague allegations in the Writ Petition may not lead to positive results. Moreover, it must be shown that no alternative remedy exists, and the remedy of Writ Petition is the only efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner. In the case of a Live-in relationship, the fundamental rights to life, liberty, personal autonomy, privacy, and choice must be invoked to seek relief in such matters.