The Allahabad High Court, while rejecting the FIR quashing plea of a live-in relationship couple that includes the minor boy's desire for a live-in relationship despite being dependent on his father.

A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus while dealing with a plea filed by a girl (Anchal Rajbhar) and her minor live-in partner (Jaihind Rajbhar) seeking to quash an FIR lodged against the boy under Section 366 IPC.

After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records, the Court observed that the petitioners are engaged in a live-in relationship. It was further noted that petitioner no. 1, the girl, is 19 years old, while petitioner no. 2 is a minor and financially dependent on his parents. In view of this, the Court opined that there is no occasion or reason to quash the FIR in the exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the prayer for quashing the FIR was declined and refused and the writ petition was rejected.

In a related development, the Allahabad High Court recently made a noteworthy observation that a 'child,' defined as an individual below 18 years of age, cannot engage in a live-in relationship, deeming it not only morally questionable but also illegal.

The Court also said that there are several conditions for a live-in relation to be treated as a relation in nature of marriage and in any case, a person has to be major (above the age of 18 years) although he may not be of marriageable age (21 years).

In a separate development, the Allahabad High Court, while rejecting the plea of an interfaith live-in couple seeking police protection for their ongoing live-in relationship, recently commented that such relationships often stem from infatuation for the opposite sex and lack sincerity, frequently resulting in mere timepass.

Though accepting that the Supreme Court has, in several cases, validated the live-in relationship, the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi however added that in the span of two months and that too, at a tender age of 20-22 years, the Court cannot expect that the couple would be able to give serious thought over such type of temporary relationship.

"The Court feels that such type of relationship is more of infatuation than to have stability and sincerity. Unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name of their relationship or they are sincere towards each other, the Court shuns and avoid to express any opinion in such type of relationship," the Court remarked.

Case title - Anchal Rajbhar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others