The Allahabad High Court recently noted that, in contrast to Western nations, live-in relationships are not common in India and that people should respect the traditions and culture of the country. On January 11, Justice Shamim Ahmed made the observation while dismissing a habeas corpus petition submitted by a 32-year-old petitioner Asish Kumar, who claimed that his partner, a 29-year-old woman, was being confined forcefully by her family members.
However, the Court was unconvinced by the petitioner’s account of events. Concerning certain points made by the petitioner’s lawyer, the judge stated that live-in relationships are not common in India.
“This Court is of the view that we are not living in a Western country where this type of relationship is very popular and common among the citizens. We live in a country where people believe in culture and traditions, which is the crown of our country and we are proud of it, therefore, we have to respect the traditions and culture of our country,” the Court said.
The Court further held that the habeas corpus petition was solely intended to defame the girl and her family in society. Justice Ahmed noted that the petition was solely filed to extract a compromise from the woman’s family by placing them under pressure and fear of humiliation.
“This Court does not find any justification to entertain this type of petition and to frustrate this type of petition filed by any such person in future only to defame the image of a girl or her family members, who are living in a society and if the Court entertains this type of petition, the image and reputation of family as well as of the girl will certainly be demolished and it will be very difficult for a family who has been roped in these type of cases to solemnize the wedding of their girl in future to any other family of their choice,” Justice Ahmed observed.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and imposed costs of ₹25,000 on petitioner Ashish Kumar.
In his appeal, Ashish Kumar claimed that he had been in a relationship with a woman since 2011. It was also alleged that, despite the couple’s desire to marry, the woman’s family opposed the union, and she was forced to stay at home and forbidden from meeting Kumar. Kumar additionally submitted photographs and a letter allegedly written by the woman to back up his accusations.
The State opposed these submissions, claiming that the entire case was bogus, contrived, and intended to harm the woman and her family’s reputations in society. The Court saw merit in the State’s position. The judge concluded that the pictures submitted by the petitioner appeared to be modified and altered and that the letter allegedly written by the woman appeared to be forged.
Furthermore, the Court questioned why the couple did not marry after supposedly being in a relationship for thirteen years. The Court also noted that Ashish Kumar’s writ petition made no mention of any live-in relationship, leading the Court to assume that the petitioner’s arguments before the Court were meticulously laid out to secure a favourable court ruling.
In dismissing the plea, the Court stated that allowing such petitions may make it more difficult for the families involved to arrange marriages for their daughters in future.
