The Allahabad High Court said that a person professing Islam cannot claim the right to live-in relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse, the Court said this while sending a Muslim man’s Hindu live-in partner to her parents.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: The Allahabad High Court ruled that a Muslim individual cannot claim the right to a live-in relationship if they already have a living spouse, highlighting the interplay between personal laws and constitutional rights. The decision was handed down by a division bench consisting of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, as they deliberated over a petition seeking to quash a kidnapping case and requested non-interference in a Hindu-Muslim couple’s relationship.
The court emphasized that customs and usages hold significant legal standing under the Constitution and are enforceable when recognized as valid law.
“The customs and usages are an equal source of law recognized by the Constitution as the law made by the competent Legislature. Once there is a recognition of the customs and usages as a valid law within the framework of our Constitution, even such laws become enforceable in an appropriate case,”
–the justices stated.
Further, the court remarked that the constitutional protection under Article 21 does not indiscriminately support the right to a live-in relationship, particularly when existing customs and personal laws explicitly prohibit such arrangements.
“A person reposing faith in Islam cannot claim any rights in the nature of a live-in-relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse,”
-the court noted.
Addressing the legal implications, the Court stated,
“This relief is sought in a situation where petitioner No.2 belonging to a different religion is already married and has a minor child of five years of age. The religious tenets to which the petitioner No.2 belongs to, does not permit live-in-relationship during the subsisting marriage.”
The judges expressed that their stance might differ in a scenario where both individuals involved were unmarried adults choosing to live together.
Highlighting the principles of constitutional morality, the Court noted,
“The constitutional morality in that situation may come to the rescue of such a couple and the social morality settled through the customs and usages over ages may give way to the constitutional morality and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may step in to protect the cause.”
However, given the existing marriage and the presence of a minor child, the Court found that continuing the live-in relationship would not be justifiable. The judgment emphasized the need to balance constitutional morality with social morality, particularly in matters of marital institutions, to maintain social cohesion and peace.
Consequently, the Court strongly refuted the plea for continuation of the live-in relationship, asserting that such a direction would be inappropriate despite constitutional protections.
“Thus, the direction for continuation of a live-in-relationship as has been prayed for in the present writ petition, the Court would strongly deprecate and deny notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional protection remains available to a citizen of India,”
–the order noted.
The Court also directed the police to ensure the petitioner’s live-in partner was safely returned to her parents’ home and to report back on the action taken. Additionally, the judges raised concerns about possible abuses of legal processes and warned of scrutinizing the concealment of material facts, scheduling further hearings for May 8 to address these issues.
This particular case involved a Muslim man already married and with a child, who entered into a live-in relationship with a Hindu woman. Despite claims that his Muslim wife consented to this arrangement due to her ailments and that he had given her triple talaq, the court proceeded with caution. On April 29, it ordered police to bring the wife from Mumbai, where she was residing, to verify these claims and ascertain the truth of the situation.
The case presented complex legal and ethical issues, as the court grappled with the conflicting rights and duties arising from personal beliefs, statutory laws, and constitutional protections. The court’s directive to have the individuals involved present for proceedings underscores the seriousness with which it viewed the case, reflecting a diligent approach to resolving such sensitive matters.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Live-in Relationship
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
