Deeksha Sood –
A major woman who is married live in relationship with a major man. They in their protection plea sought direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere and disturb their peaceful live-in relation by adopting coercive measures.
The Court to which answers can they grant protection to people who want to commit what can be said to be an act which is against the mandate of Hindu Marriage Act.
Indian Constitution Article 21 may permit a person to have own liberty but the liberty has to be within the ambit of law which applies to them.
Further it was observed by the Court that the woman was legally wedded wife of respondent no. 5 and remarked: “She has for whatever reasons decided to go away from her husband, can we permit them to live in relation under the guise of protection of life and liberty “
The Court also observed that whether her husband had committed an act which can be said to be an offence under section 377 I.P.C. for which she has never complained of all these are disputed questions of facts.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Puri disposed of their with a direction to Senior Superintendent of police Faridkot to look into the grievance of the petitioners as projected in their representation.
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that: A live-in relationship between a married and unmarried person is not permissible,“Marriage in India is said to be a scared bond between two people according to Vedas. Though live-in relationships are not illegal for adults but it have its ambit which needs to be follow.”
Case in question: Smt. Geeta And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others