Allahabad High Court Rules Against Live-in Relationship for Married Muslim Man
The Allahabad High Court recently emphasized that a person adhering to Islam cannot lay claim to the right to a live-in relationship, especially when already married. In a ruling by a division bench comprising Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, the court reasoned that customs hold equal significance alongside statutory and personal laws in regulating marital behavior.
The court highlighted that customs and usages are recognized as valid laws by the Constitution and are enforceable in appropriate cases. It stressed that constitutional protection under Article 21 does not unconditionally support the right to a live-in relationship when customs prohibit such relationships.
The court made these observations while addressing a petition seeking the dismissal of a kidnapping case against a man and a plea to refrain from interfering in the relationship of a Hindu-Muslim couple. However, the court discovered from records that the Muslim man was already married to a Muslim woman with whom he had a five-year-old daughter.
It was also revealed that the man had earlier filed a petition for the protection of their liberty, claiming his wife had no objections to his live-in relationship due to her health issues. Subsequently, the court directed the police to produce the man’s wife and instructed both him and his live-in partner to appear before the court.
Further inquiries revealed that the man’s wife was residing in Mumbai with her in-laws, contrary to the man’s claims. The court opined that the petition sought to legitimize the live-in relationship, which was impermissible given the man’s existing marriage and religious tenets.
The court stated that while unmarried individuals may choose to lead their lives as they wish, constitutional morality might protect such couples under Article 21. However, in this case, the continuation of the live-in relationship was not granted to safeguard the rights of the wife and the interest of the minor child.
The court emphasized the need to balance constitutional and social morality in matters concerning marriage to maintain social coherence and tranquility. It directed the police to escort the man’s live-in partner to her parents’ home and instructed a further examination of the concealment of material facts in the case.
The matter was listed for further hearing on May 8, with representation from advocates Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi, Devendra Verma, Kajol, Tanupriya for the petitioner, advocate SP Singh for the State, and advocate Suyansh Kumar Pandey for the complainant.
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
