According to the Allahabad High Court, Live-in-relationships are “time pass” that lack “stability” and genuineness.
The high court bench made the following observation while noting that the Supreme Court had approved live-in relationships: “While the Apex Court has approved live-in relationships in a number of cases, we cannot expect that a couple, who is only 20 or 22 years old, would be able to give serious thought to their type of temporary relationship in just two months.” As previously stated, it is more of an insincere obsession with the opposite sex.
Also read: Punjab Police Officer Fatally Assaulted While Intervening In Restaurant Bill Dispute
“Life isn’t all sunshine and roses. The website cited the bench as stating, “It assesses each couple based on harsh and harsh realities.” It added, “Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often results in timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding giving any protection to the petitioner during the stage of the investigation.”
The pair decided to keep their live-in relationship going, and they had also requested police protection. The woman’s attorney contended in court that since she is older than twenty, she is entitled to make decisions about her future. The attorney further stated that the woman had made the decision to live with the accused.
The opposing attorney countered that her partner is the subject of an FIR filed in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. The man is a “road-romeo and a vagabond who has no future and in all certainty, would ruin the girl’s life,” the attorney claimed.
Also read: Punjab Police Officer Fatally Assaulted While Intervening In Restaurant Bill Dispute
The high court made it clear that, despite having concerns about live-in relationships, its position should not be “misinterpreted as a judgment or endorsement of the petitioners’ relationship nor as a safeguard against any lawful actions taken in accordance with the law”, according to the Bar and Bench report.
The judge noted that this kind of relationship lacks stability and honesty and is more about infatuation.
The bench rejected the appeal, stating that “the Court shuns and avoids expressing any opinion in such type of relationship unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name of their relationship or they are sincere towards each other,” according to the report.
