“We are not in Western country where live-in relationships common.”-The Court made the comment while dismissing a plea by a man who claimed that his partner was being forcefully detained by her family. The Court determined that the plea was merely a tactic intended to tarnish the woman’s reputation.
The Allahabad High Court in India emphasized the cultural differences between Indian society and Western countries, particularly in the context of live-in relationships. Justice Shamim Ahmed, presiding over the case, made a significant observation highlighting the uniqueness of Indian traditions and culture, which are not akin to the Western acceptance of live-in relationships.
The case involved a habeas corpus petition filed by Ashish Kumar, a 32-year-old man, who claimed that his 29-year-old partner was being forcibly detained by her family. Kumar, who had been in a relationship with the woman since 2011, alleged that their plans to marry were thwarted by her family’s opposition, leading to her confinement at home. To substantiate his claims, Kumar presented photographs and a letter, allegedly from the woman, as evidence.
However, the court, after careful examination, found inconsistencies and signs of manipulation in the evidence presented. Justice Ahmed noted that the photographs seemed altered, and the letter appeared forged. The court also raised questions about why the couple had not married despite their long-term relationship, suggesting that the petitioner’s arguments were strategically crafted for the court proceedings.
In his judgment, Justice Ahmed stated,
“This Court is of the view that we are not living in a Western country where this type of relationship is very popular and common among the citizens. We live in a country where people believe in culture and traditions, which is the crown of our country, and we are proud of it, therefore, we have to respect the traditions and culture of our country.”
This statement underscores the court’s stance on upholding Indian cultural values over Western relationship norms.
Furthermore, the court concluded that the habeas corpus petition was an attempt to defame the woman and her family, aimed at pressuring them for a compromise. Justice Ahmed expressed concern that entertaining such petitions could harm the reputation and future prospects of the families involved, especially in arranging marriages for their daughters.
“This Court does not find any justification to entertain this type of petition and to frustrate this type of petition filed by any such person in future only with the intention to defame the image of a girl or her family members, who are living in a society and if the Court entertains this type of petition, the image and reputation of family members as well as of the girl will certainly be demolished and it will be very difficult for a family who has been roped in these type of cases to solemnize the wedding of their girl in future to any other family of their choice,”
-Justice Ahmed observed.
As a result, the court dismissed the petition and imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on Kumar. The court’s decision reflects a strong adherence to cultural norms and traditions in India, contrasting with the more liberal approach to relationships prevalent in many Western countries.
Representing the petitioner was Advocate Rajiv Dubey, while Additional Government Advocate Ashok Kumar Singh appeared for the State. This case highlights the ongoing cultural and legal discourse in India regarding the acceptance and legal status of live-in relationships, a concept widely recognized in many Western nations but still a subject of debate in Indian society.
[Read/Download Order]
FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM FOR QUICK AND LIVE LEGAL UPDATES
