“The customs and usages are an equal source of law recognized by the Constitution as the law made by the competent Legislature. Once there is a recognition of the customs and usages as a valid law within the framework of our Constitution, even such laws become enforceable in an appropriate case.” 

Facts of the case:

As per a report of Bar and Bench, the bench of the High Court was dealing with a petition that sought for the quashing of a kidnapping case against a petitioner along with directions from the court regarding protection against interfere in the relationship of a Hindu-Muslim couple. It is essential to note that the Court noted that the couple had filed a petition earlier too for the protection of their liberty.

On April 29, the Court had directed the Police to produce the Muslim man’s wife and also asked him and his live-in partner to remain present. A day later, the Court was apprised about some “alarming” facts.

As per Bar & Bench, the Court found from the records that the Muslim man was already married to a Muslim woman with a five-year-old daughter. It was told that the man’s wife was not residing in Uttar Pradesh as claimed by him but in Mumbai with her in-laws.

The Court had also been appraised that the wife of the Muslim man wife had no objection to his live-in relationship as she was suffering from certain ailments. In the latest petition, the Court was told the man has given triple talaq to the wife.

Observations of the Court:

In view of the “alarming findings”, the Court said the current petition seeking quashing of the kidnapping case was one which actually sought legitimization of the live-in relationship between the Hindu woman and the Muslim man. While the facts of the case may have been such that the Allahabad High Court could not have granted the plea for protection of liberty of the couple, as the man had a living spouse, the Court ended up focussing more on the religion of the man in question. As per the report of the Bar & Bench, the bench stated that a person professing Islam cannot claim the right to live-in relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse.

“A person reposing faith in Islam cannot claim any rights in the nature of a live-in-relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse.”

The court further added that the constitutional protection under Article 21 would not lend an “un-canalized support” to the right to live-in relationship when the usages and customs prohibit such relations between the two individuals.

“This relief is sought in a situation where petitioner No.2 belonging to a different religion is already married and has a minor child of five years of age. The religious tenets to which the petitioner No.2 belongs to, does not permit live-in-relationship during the subsisting marriage.”

The Court said any further continuation of the live-in relationship cannot be granted while looking at the rights of the wife as well as the interest of the minor child. The court observed that the constitutional morality and social morality in the “matter of marriage institution” are required to be balanced. Otherwise, social coherence for achieving the object of peace and tranquillity in the society would fade and disappear, the Court said. With this, the Court stated that their decision may have been different if the two persons involved in the partnership were unmarried and being major, choose to lead their lives in a way of their own.

“The constitutional morality in that situation may come to the rescue of such a couple and the social morality settled through the customs and usages over ages may give way to the constitutional morality and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may step in to protect the cause”.

“Thus, the direction for continuation of a live-in-relationship as has been prayed for in the present writ petition, the Court would strongly deprecate and deny notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional protection remains available to a citizen of India.” 

The Court, therefore, directed the police to escort the man’s live-in partner to her parents’ home and submit a report regarding it. While keeping the matter pending and listing the same for further hearing on May 8, the bench highlighted that by concealing material facts, the counsel for the petitioners have abused the process of law.

“The Court shall next go into the question of concealment of material facts and we find that the counsel appearing in the two cases has risked at his own cost to abuse the process of law.”

The saga of contentious remarks while dealing with protection petitions of inter-faith couples continue:

The Allahabad High Court has garnered headlines a few times since the past few months, and not for particularly good reasons. In the month of January, news had broken out that the Allahabad High Court had rejected petitions moved by eight Hindu-Muslim couples, seeking protection of life, on the grounds that their marriages were not in compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, or commonly known as the anti-conversion law. All these eight petitions had been dismissed by the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava. In the identically-worded orders, the bench of Allahabad HC had written the following while dealing with couples who had sought directions to authorities concerned to ensure they get protection for their lives and be guaranteed non-interference in their marital lives by others:

“In such view of the fact, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to prefer fresh writ petition in case they solemnise marriage after following the due procedure of law.” 

A close analysis of these orders by Sabrang India can be read here.

Another bench of the Allahabad High Court, namely Justice Renu Agarwal’s, track record of rejection petitions filed by unmarried couples regarding threat of violence from the community also came under scrutiny. As per a report in Scroll, an analysis of almost 400 petitions by couples seeking the High Court’s protection showed that she granted such orders only to married couples who had registered their marriages and had no first information reports pending against them. On the other hand, unmarried couples were never granted protection from violence or interference. In addition, Agarwal has, through her judgments, created the legal requirement that unmarried inter-faith couples may live together only if one of them converts to the religion of the other.

Notably, in the month of February 2024, the bench of Justice Renu Agarwal had observed that a legally wedded Muslim wife cannot go outside marriage and her live-in relationship with another man would be ‘Zina’ (fornication) and ‘Haram’ (act forbidden by Allah) as per the Shariat Law.  The aforementioned observation had been made by the Bench while rejecting a protection plea filed by a married Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner fearing for her life against her father and other relatives. Notably, as per a report in the LiveLaw, the Court had added that the ‘criminal act’ of the woman “cannot be supported and protected” by the Court.

Related:

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages” 

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

The post Allahabad HC denies protection to inter-faith couple observing that “Muslims cannot claim right to live-in relationship as it is against their customary law” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Blaming the evil west, opening sessions of the seven day ‘international convention to bring in Hindu Rashtra”, Pingale a ‘Guru” for this extremist outfit also said, “Now, the western world wants this perversion to be accepted in India. Where there is no dharma or ethics, asuras (demons) will emerge,” he told hundreds of representatives from 310 Hindu organisations from 22 states and abroad. Pingale added that it was live-in relationships also were harming dharma. “If such relationships get legal acceptance, many families’ and daughters’ lives will be destroyed. We are moving towards destruction. If we engage in adharma, we will have to bear the consequences,” he said.

Bemoaning the destruction caused by Cyclone Biparjoy, Pingale said over the past 11 years they had been predicting at the annual Hindu convention that “adharma will see a rise in bio-wars and natural disasters like cyclones”. Pingale also said the Khalistan movement is yet another challenge to Hindu unity. He said that the average Sikh does not support Khalistan but is being provoked by Pakistan’s ISI and by groups of Christian missionaries.

“Some are asking what is wrong with the demand for Khalistan when you are seeking Hindu Rashtra,” Pingale said. “But Khalistan is about dividing the nation and violence. We need to fight this propaganda of comparing Khalistan with the Hindu Rashtra movement.”

Electoral Loss in Karnataka

Pingale also said that BJP lost the recent assembly polls in Karnataka because Hindus were left confused without the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act. “We have to create such a situation that parties’ manifestos promise the establishment of Hindu Rashtra,” Pingale said. “In Parliament too, Hindu Rashtra is being discussed by MPs. The seed has been sown and we want to see a flourishing tree.”

Sanatan Sanstha founder Jayant Athavale said in a message, which was read out, that Hindu Rashtra will definitely be established by 2025. 2023 is 100 years of the formation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

“The time for establishment of Hindu Rashtra is nearing. Even Sri Ram had to go to war for peace. So, no one should be under the impression that Hindu Rashtra will be established by itself. It is definite that we will have to fight for it. For this, we will have to start preparation from today,” Athavale said. Jayant Athavale and his outfit have been accused of unethically performing hypnosis on unwilling participants, even women.

Both HJS and SS have been and are being investigated by authorities in Karnataka and Maharashtra for the assassinations of four rationalists, Narendra Dabolkar (2013), Govind Pansare (2015), MM Kalburgi (2015) and Gauri Lankesh (2017)

Related:

Now, a Goa outfit wants film on ‘Portuguese horror’

Savarkar’s grandson calls for trade boycott of Muslims: HJS, GOA

The post Its live-in and gay ties whip up cyclones like Biparjoy: HJS, Goa appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a liberal approach while deciding a plea for protection by a runaway couple, where the girl was short of attaining majority by a few months. The bench of Justice Sant Prakash held that it would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage, and directed Bathinda police to decide their application for protection within a week.

The petitioners, aged 17 years (girl) and 20 years (boy), came before the court seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands of the parents of petitioner no.1. They wanted her to marry a person of their choice as they had come to know about her relationship with petitioner no. 2. Thus, she left her home on May 17 and they have been on the run since then. They decided to live together till such time as they could solemnise a marriage, i.e. on attaining the marriageable age.

They state that their relationship would never be accepted by the family as they belong to different castes. They even sought protection from Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda but there was no response.

The court observed that the petitioners have approached the court seeking protection of their life and liberty from the respondents while seeking directions restraining them from interfering in the peaceful live-in relationship of the petitioners.

“The petitioners have not approached this court either seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship. The limited prayer as noted is for grant of protection to them, fearing the ire of family members of petitioner No.1, on account of the parties residing together without the sanctity of a valid marriage,” the court noted.

The court cited the judgement given by a Division Bench of the court in Rajwinder Kaur and another Versus State of Punjab, (2014) where it was held that marriage is not a must for security to be provided to a runaway couple. The court also cited a recent judgement of the high court where a similar approach was taken as also orders of Allahabad High Court granting protection in such recent cases.

“The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence,” the court observed.

The court also cited Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, where female live-in-partners and the children of live-in-couples have been accorded adequate protection.

The court also pointed to honour killings prevalent in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh which is a result of people marrying without their family’s acceptance.

“It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to uphold to the Rule of law,” the court held.

The court clearly stated that the petitioners have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision. The court also cited the Supreme Court judgement in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) whereby the court held that “live in relationship is permissible and the act of two adults living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful, while further holding that the issue of morality and criminality are not co-extensive”.

The court, thus, observed that the petitioners have not committed any offence and said, “This court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to”. The court refused to take the same view as other benches of the court who had denied such protection to live-in couples and stated that, “with due respect to the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples who are in live in relationship, this court is unable to adopt the same view.”

Without evaluating the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, the court disposed the petition while directing Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to decide the representation of the petitioners within 1 week of receiving a copy of the court’s order and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

A similar view was taken by a bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur while granting protection to a couple in a live-in relationship. On the other hand, vide order dated May 11, bench of Justice HS Madaan denied protection to a live-in couple calling their live-in relationship morally and socially unacceptable.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Live-in relationships may not be acceptable to all, but not illegal: Punjab & Haryana HC
Woman embraces Islam and marries a Muslim, Jammu & Kashmir HC grants protection
Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection

The post It will be travesty of justice of protection is denied to live-in couples: Punjab & Haryana HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over the past few days, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been seized with several petitions filed by young runaway couples who fear reprisal from their families. In yet another significant ruling, Justice Jaishree Thakur has granted protection to a couple in a live-in relationship while holding that such relationships are not illegal in India.

The Single-judge Bench was hearing a plea filed by a 22-year-old woman and a 19-year-old man who moved in together till such time as they could solemnise their marriage, i.e., as and when the man attains the marriageable age of 21. They submitted before the court that both belonged to different castes, and that they approached the court for protection because they feared that there was a threat to their life as the relationship was not acceptable to the woman’s family.

The couple clarified that they did not file a plea seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship. They requested the court to issue direction to the woman’s family members to restrain themselves from interfering in their peaceful live-in relationship.

Court’s observations

Justice Thakur referred to some judicial precedents while noting that courts have provided protection to some runaway couples, even though they were not married and were in a live-in relationship, and in some cases where the marriage was invalid as one of the parties though a major, was not of appropriate age as per section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act (18 years for women, 21 years for men).

In this context, the High Court held that, “The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence.”

Considering the facts of this case, Justice Jaishree added, “It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage, and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to uphold the Rule of law.”

Justice Thakur refused to interfere or judge the couple’s personal decision as both of them are adults. The Court also said that one cannot also lose sight of honour killings which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. “Honour killing is a result of people marrying without their family’s acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion”, Justice Thakur added.

She held that once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause hindrance to their peaceful existence. The State at this juncture, must ensure their protection and their personal liberty.

Finally, the Court disposed of the petition with directions to the State to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of one week and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

In related news, as SabrangIndia had previously reported, Justice Sudhir Mittal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to a live-in couple and noted that social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing. Justice Mittal also ruled that live-in relationships are not prohibited in law, nor does it amount to the commission of any offence.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection
Live-in relationship is morally and socially unacceptable: Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab and Haryana HC suggest safe houses for inter-caste couples

The post Live-in relationships may not be acceptable to all, but not illegal: Punjab & Haryana HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant protection to a couple living together, apprehending danger from the parents of one of the petitioners. The bench of Justice HS Madaan while denying such protection called their live-in relationship morally and socially unacceptable.

This is not the first time the judges of this high court have taken such a regressive view towards relationships. A few days ago, another bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal had denied protection to a couple where the couple was 18 to 21 years old stating that if such protection is granted the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed. It is commonplace for couples in inter-caste of interfaith relationships to approach the high court for granting them protection as they apprehend threat from either or both families to life. While in the past, the high court has accepted such petitions with open arms, these single-judge benches have crushed hopes of these and many other young couples who placed their trust and faith in the judiciary to protect their rights.

In March, single-judge bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi held the marriage between a Hindu man and a Muslim woman to be invalid, as all wedding ceremonies and rites were in accordance with Hindu traditions without the woman converting to Hinduism before solemnisation. Further, bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan deemed the clause in the couple’s live-in relationship contract which clearly mentioned that it was not a marital relationship to be a “misuse of process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society”.

On the other hand the bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan had suggested that the states provide safe houses for inter-caste or inter-faith couples apprehending threat, so that they do not have to approach the court each time.

In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010), the Supreme Court held that, the live-in relationship if continued for long time, cannot be termed as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship and that there is a presumption of marriage between the parties. Further, In landmark case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship comes within the ambit of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and the act of two majors living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful.

The May 11 order may be read here:

The May 12 order may be read here:

Related:

Punjab and Haryana HC suggest safe houses for inter-caste couples
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert
Punjab and Haryana HC refuses to grant protection to live-in couple

The post Live-in relationship is morally and socially unacceptable: Punjab & Haryana HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.