Delhi High Court prohibits parole based on maintaining conjugal relations with live-in partners, citing absence of right to conceive, particularly when convict’s legal spouse is alive, in recent ruling by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, recently has stated that parole cannot be granted to individuals on the grounds of maintaining a conjugal relationship with their live-in partners. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that a live-in partner does not have the right to bear a child with their incarcerated partner, particularly when the convict’s legal wife is still alive.
The High Court Bench further emphasized that granting parole for the purpose of having a child or maintaining conjugal relationships with a live-in partner, especially when the convict is already married and has children from that marriage, would establish a harmful precedent.
Justice Sharma stated-
“If parole is granted on such grounds, it could lead to a flood of similar petitions, with numerous convicts seeking parole based on having a live-in partner in addition to their legally wedded spouse. Even in the case of an unmarried convict, if a live-in partner desires to conceive with the convict, such requests cannot be permitted under the existing law and relevant rules governing parole, as outlined in the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.”
The court clarified that a live-in partner does not fall under the definition of a “family member” as per the prison rules.
“Hence, the petitioner’s live-in partner, who lacks legal recognition as a ‘wife’ or ‘spouse,’ does not meet the criteria to be considered within the definition of ‘family’ under the Delhi Prison Rules.”
– the Court emphasized.
The Delhi High Court’s decision followed a petition by Sonu Sonkar, a convicted murderer, seeking parole to formalize his marriage with his second wife and sustain social connections. During the proceedings, it was revealed that Sonkar had been granted parole multiple times, and it was during one such period that he entered into a marriage with another woman.
Nevertheless, the court observed the absence of documentation to verify the marriage or to establish whether Sonkar had obtained a divorce from his first wife. After examining the case, Justice Sharma determined that the issue of consummating the marriage with the second woman was moot, as she was already pregnant and had delivered a stillborn child.
Furthermore, the court recognized that Sonkar already had three children with his first wife. As a result, the court dismissed Sonkar’s request for parole.
ALSO READ: “Imported Philosophy & Stigma In Indian Culture”: HC on Live-in Relationships
Sonu Sonkar was represented by advocates Ansh Makkar and Vaibhav Sinha, while the Delhi Police was represented by Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha. Other respondents were represented by advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, and Chavi Lazarus.
Case Title:
Sonu Sonkar v The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors.
