You are here: Home » Current Affairs » News » National
Business Standard

HC turns down plea of live-in couple for protection

HC termed petitioners' contention as 'misconceived' that they had 'a right to live-in relationship' and were 'therefore entitled to protection'

Press Trust of India  |  Allahabad 

A judge hitting gavel with paper at wooden table. (Photo: Shutterstock)
A judge hitting gavel with paper at wooden table. (Photo: Shutterstock)

The has turned down the plea of a that they be provided protection on the ground that the woman in question happened to be married and "her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date".

Justice Suneet Kumar passed the order in October, dismissing the petition of and her live-in partner who had moved the court with the prayer to issue a direction to authorities concerned that they "shall not interfere in the liberty of the petitioners to life as husband and wife of their live-in relationship", besides protecting them against "disturbance to peaceful living" and any type of humiliation and harassment.

While admitting in the petition that was married to one on May 30, the petitioners had contended that the same was "solemnised against her wishes" and despite the fact that they had been in a "for the past five years".

However, dismissing the petition vide judgement dated November 9, the court termed the petitioners' contention as "misconceived" that they had "a right to live-in relationship" and were "therefore entitled to protection".

The court pointed out that the woman's live-in partner "can be prosecuted" since it was known to him that was "already married" and hence the relationship between them was "adulterous".

"The second petitioner entered into a relationship with the first petitioner who is married and her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date, therefore, such a relationship cannot be granted any protection", the court said, adding, "the petition, being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed".

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

HC turns down plea of live-in couple for protection

HC termed petitioners' contention as 'misconceived' that they had 'a right to live-in relationship' and were 'therefore entitled to protection'

HC termed petitioners' contention as 'misconceived' that they had 'a right to live-in relationship' and were 'therefore entitled to protection'
The has turned down the plea of a that they be provided protection on the ground that the woman in question happened to be married and "her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date".

Justice Suneet Kumar passed the order in October, dismissing the petition of and her live-in partner who had moved the court with the prayer to issue a direction to authorities concerned that they "shall not interfere in the liberty of the petitioners to life as husband and wife of their live-in relationship", besides protecting them against "disturbance to peaceful living" and any type of humiliation and harassment.

While admitting in the petition that was married to one on May 30, the petitioners had contended that the same was "solemnised against her wishes" and despite the fact that they had been in a "for the past five years".

However, dismissing the petition vide judgement dated November 9, the court termed the petitioners' contention as "misconceived" that they had "a right to live-in relationship" and were "therefore entitled to protection".

The court pointed out that the woman's live-in partner "can be prosecuted" since it was known to him that was "already married" and hence the relationship between them was "adulterous".

"The second petitioner entered into a relationship with the first petitioner who is married and her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date, therefore, such a relationship cannot be granted any protection", the court said, adding, "the petition, being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed".
image
Business Standard
177 22

HC turns down plea of live-in couple for protection

HC termed petitioners' contention as 'misconceived' that they had 'a right to live-in relationship' and were 'therefore entitled to protection'

The has turned down the plea of a that they be provided protection on the ground that the woman in question happened to be married and "her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date".

Justice Suneet Kumar passed the order in October, dismissing the petition of and her live-in partner who had moved the court with the prayer to issue a direction to authorities concerned that they "shall not interfere in the liberty of the petitioners to life as husband and wife of their live-in relationship", besides protecting them against "disturbance to peaceful living" and any type of humiliation and harassment.

While admitting in the petition that was married to one on May 30, the petitioners had contended that the same was "solemnised against her wishes" and despite the fact that they had been in a "for the past five years".

However, dismissing the petition vide judgement dated November 9, the court termed the petitioners' contention as "misconceived" that they had "a right to live-in relationship" and were "therefore entitled to protection".

The court pointed out that the woman's live-in partner "can be prosecuted" since it was known to him that was "already married" and hence the relationship between them was "adulterous".

"The second petitioner entered into a relationship with the first petitioner who is married and her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date, therefore, such a relationship cannot be granted any protection", the court said, adding, "the petition, being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed".

image
Business Standard
177 22