Children Can’t Be in Live-In Relationships Because It Is Immoral and Illegal, According to Allahabad High Court
According to a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court, it is unlawful and unethical for a kid to live with someone else. Although a live-in relationship is not illegal, the court emphasized that a boy under the age of 18 cannot be allowed to have one.
A live-in relationship must meet a number of requirements in order to be considered as one that has the same legal status as marriage. The individual must be at least major age, or 18 years old, even if he need not be of marriageable age, or 21 years old, according to the court.
The high court was hearing a writ petition filed by a 19-year-old Hindu girl who was asking for instructions to dismiss an IPC kidnapping case against her live-in Muslim boyfriend, who is 17 years old. The girl was a major and had left her family freely, according to the couple’s legal representative, thus there was no evidence of kidnapping. Additionally, the attorney informed the judge that the pair had been together for 15 days before being discovered by the girl’s family. The kid is still in the girl’s family’s unlawful care even though the girl was able to flee, the attorney said.
Live-in partnerships are not permissible under Muslim law, the division bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Rajendra Kumar remarked in Kiran Rawat and others vs. State of UP and others (2023).
The court also ruled that since the POCSO Act is gender-neutral, it applies to both males and females, and if a man is under the age of 18, he would likewise be viewed as a minor.
Additionally, the court ruled that without two significant individuals who have the right to live their separate lives and, to that degree, are to be safeguarded, no law of the nation has granted a live-in relationship any kind of protective umbrella.
The court determined that an accused who is younger than 18 cannot request protection on the basis of a live-in relationship with a major female after taking into account the relevant circumstances of the case at hand.
The court said, “In the event that this is permitted, this would amount to endorsing illegal activity and, therefore, will not be in the interest of our society. We are not inclined to put a seal of approval on such legally prohibited activities.”
The court denied the request to dismiss the case, stating that it was up to the investigators to determine whether or not the youngster had committed abduction, as defined by Section 366 of the IPC.
