The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a plea for protection from a woman in a live-in relationship who was forced into marriage by her father at the tender age of 13 to another man.

The court observed that despite attaining the age of majority, the woman had not pursued the dissolution of her marriage or initiated divorce proceedings in the appropriate court. Instead, she opted for a live-in relationship.

The court underscored that, according to Hindu law, engaging in an illicit live-in relationship while one's spouse is alive contradicts legal provisions.

Justice Renu Agarwal's bench emphasized that sanctioning such relationships would disrupt societal norms. The judge stated, "Endorsing this type of relationship goes against the court's orders... If the court entertains such cases and provides protection to unlawful relationships, it will lead to chaos in society."

Additionally, expressing concern, the court remarked that safeguarding the couple could be interpreted as legitimizing their unlawful relationship.

"The court does not deem it proper to permit the parties to such illegality, as tomorrow petitioners may convey that this court sanctified their illicit relations," it said. 

The court clarified that, while it held no objection to live-in relationships in general, it strongly opposed relationships that were illegal.

"Living in live-in- relationships cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this country. Directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relations," the court underscored. 

As a result, the court dismissed the protection plea submitted by the live-in couple. The couple had filed the plea under Article 226 of the Constitution, urging the court to instruct the police authorities to guarantee their safety. Additionally, they sought an order to prevent interference from their family members in their peaceful live-in relationship.

During the proceedings, the couple informed the court that the male partner had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the woman's parents for marrying her as a child. They contended that since the woman's marriage was invalid, she was willingly participating in the live-in relationship of her own accord.