On December 11th, the Bombay High Court denied police protection to a young interfaith couple seeking to sustain their live-in relationship. While acknowledging the woman’s autonomy, the court emphasized the impracticality of police involvement in personal matters and highlighted the societal pressures affecting the couple. Ultimately, the court prioritized prudent use of state resources.
Mumbai: Today, on Dec 11th, the Bombay High Court took a firm stance while addressing an unusual plea from a young interfaith couple seeking judicial intervention for police protection to sustain their live-in relationship. The bench, comprising Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, unequivocally stated,
“Don’t expect us to provide police protection to you. The police cannot be expected to ensure your safety just because you wish to live together.”
The case involved a 20-year-old Muslim man and his 19-year-old Hindu girlfriend. The woman had voluntarily left her parental home to live with the petitioner but was later placed in a government shelter home following her parents’ complaint.
The petitioner alleged that the complaint was driven by societal and political pressures, including members of the Bajrang Dal, who coerced the woman to sever ties with him. Furthermore, he claimed that she faced intimidation at the police station, where attempts were made to pressure her into abandoning the relationship. Despite these challenges, the woman expressed her intention to marry the petitioner and refused to return to her family.
Advocate Sana Raees Khan, representing the woman’s father, argued that the petition was legally unsustainable, as the man had not yet reached the legal marriageable age of 21. However, the court acknowledged the woman’s autonomy, emphasizing that “The girl is a major, and she cannot be forced to stay with her parents.”
Despite this, the bench highlighted the challenges of fulfilling the couple’s request for police protection, questioning the practicality of deploying state resources for personal matters.
Justice Dangre pointed to the societal backlash faced by the woman, including harassment on social media. However, she remarked,
“You want police force to be deployed outside your house because you want to be in a live-in relationship? As if the police have nothing better to do.”
The judges also voiced concern over the potential consequences of a live-in relationship. Highlighting their earlier conversation with the woman, the court expressed doubts about her preparedness for real-life challenges. Justice Dangre noted, “She is living in a fantasy world,” and cited her casual response to a hypothetical situation involving an unplanned pregnancy.
Read Also: Atul Subhash Points To LawChakra Video in His Heart-Wrenching Suicide Note
The bench referred to the woman’s claims that her father had coerced her into agreeing not to claim any rights over his property and had arranged her marriage against her will. While acknowledging her rebellious streak, the court refrained from granting custody to the petitioner or police protection.
Instead, the court allowed her father to meet her at the shelter home to reassess her decision but maintained its stance on using state resources prudently.
This judgment underscores the delicate balance between respecting individual autonomy and addressing the practical limitations of state intervention. While affirming the woman’s right to choose her path, the court’s remarks highlight the complexities of navigating societal norms and legal responsibilities in sensitive interfaith relationships.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
