'Live-in relations are temporary & timepass': Allahabad HC rejects police protection plea by interfaith couple

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking police protection. The court observed that such relationships are often driven by infatuation and lack sincerity, often resulting in temporary and frivolous affairs, a TOI report stated. While acknowledging that the Supreme Court has recognized live-in relationships in several cases, the division bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohammad Azhar Husain Idrisi expressed skepticism about the seriousness of a temporary relationship between individuals aged 20-22 years.

The court further remarked that live-in relationships are "temporary and fragile" and turn into "timepass".

The court emphasized that unless the couple decides to marry and commit to a long-term relationship, it refrains from commenting on such relationships. The petitioners' counsel stated that the couple was involved in a passionate affair, with petitioner No. 2 allegedly enticing the girl away. The case revolves around a joint petition filed by a young Hindu woman and a Muslim man, challenging an FIR lodged against the man by the girl's aunt under IPC Section 366 (kidnapping). The couple also sought police protection as they intended to continue their live-in relationship.


The woman's counsel argued that she was over 20 years old and, as a legal adult, had the right to make decisions about her future. She chose petitioner No. 2 as her boyfriend and desired to be in a live-in relationship with him. On the other hand, the informant's counsel opposed the plea, claiming that the woman's partner was already facing an FIR under Sections 2/3 of the UP Gangsters Act. They portrayed him as a person with no future, a road Romeo, and a vagabond who would likely ruin the girl's life.

"It is more of infatuation against opposite sex without any sincerity. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often result in timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation (sic)," the bench said.