Does living together for a few days qualify to be termed as a 'Live-in Relationship'? HC replies

  

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that living together for few days wouldn't amount to 'Live-in-Relationship'.

The single-Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj relying on SC Judgement in Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma, 2013 Latest Caselaw 821 SC said that merely because the two adults are living together for few days, their claim of live-in-relationship based upon bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in live-in-relationship.

The Court remarked that to attach legitimate sanctity to such a relation, certain conditions are required to be fulfilled by such partners.

Speaking on what will comprise 'Live-in-Relationships', the Court said:

"No doubt, the other concept of live-in-relationship between two adults of opposite gender has got recognition in India also, as the legislature has injected some legitimacy in this kind of alliance, while promulgating “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005” and liberally defined “domestic relationship” in Section 2(f). However, despite this elasticity, some sections of the society are reluctant to accept such kinds of relationship. It has to be constantly borne in mind that the length of the relationship coupled with discharge of certain duties and responsibilities towards each other makes such relationship akin to the marital relations."

The Court also spoke about social status and scrutiny around Live-In-Relationships.

"The society, for the last few years, has been experiencing profound changes in social values, especially amongst exuberant youngsters, who seldom in pursuit of absolute freedom, leave the company of their parents etc. to live with the person of their choice, and further in order to get the seal of the court to their alliance, they file petitions for protection by posing threat to their life and liberty."

 The Court noted that Protection Petitions are ordinarily based on the sole ground of apprehension of threat predicted against the disapproving parents or other close relatives of the girl only, as the decision of the couple is rarely opposed by the family members of the boy.

The Court went onto point out how such cases cause waste of Judicial Time as they lack 'actual/real' substance.

"Their right to live together is either based on their sudden, secretive and small destination marriage or upon live-in-relationship. Of-course, the aggrieved persons can avail the alternative remedy, but a large number of petitions land in the lap of this court as according to writ petitions, alternative remedy is less felicitous. Majority of such petitions contain formal symbolic averments, grounds with imaginary cause of action, and are rarely founded upon 'actual' or 'real' existence of threat, and these types of cases consume considerable time of this court, that too at the cost of many other cases waiting in line for hearing."

 In the present case as well, the Court found no real substance and also rejected the claim of couple of being in a Live-in-Relationship. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a cost of ₹25,000/- on petitioners.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure