‘Live-in relationships are timepass, temporary and fragile’: Allahabad High Court rejects couple's protection plea

livemint.com:

seeking to quash the FIR against the man filed by the woman's aunt under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which prescribes punishment for kidnapping. The plea requested the court to grant them police protection as they want to continue their live-in relationship. The opposing counsel in the case submitted that the man was a "road romeo" and he would ruin the life of the girl.

He also mentioned the cases against man's parents under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. "No doubt that Hon'ble the Apex Court in a number of cases, have validated the live-in relationship but in the span of two months in a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give a serious thought over their such type of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of infatuation against (sic) the opposite sex without any sincerity.

The life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often results in timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of the investigation," Bar and Bench quoted the judges in the matter.

However, the bench cautioned that the court's observation must not be considered as its judgment or endorsement of the petitioner's 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 avoids to express any opinion in such type of relationship," the bench added.