Allahabad HC refuses relief to the couple and expresses surprise at the little boy’s wish for a live-in relationship that is reliant on his father
Last Updated on October 27, 2023 by News Desk
Issue: The Allahabad High Court denied a quashing petition brought by a couple in a live-in relationship, one of whom is a juvenile boy, and expressed surprise at the minor boy’s wish to be in a live-in relationship.
Facts of the Case: Anchal Rajbhar (19 years old) is in a live-in relationship with Jaihind Rajbhar, a juvenile who is financially reliant on his parents. The couple filed a motion to nullify a FIR filed against the underage child under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
Arguments Presented by Parties: The petitioners wanted to have the FIR dismissed since they had been in a live-in relationship. The Court did remark, however, that one of the the petitioners, Jaihind Rajbhar, is a juvenile who was financially reliant on his parents.
Reasoning of the Judgement: In its decision, the Allahabad High Court expressed surprise that a juvenile boy, who was financially reliant on his father, wished to be in a live-in relationship. The Court found no basis to dismiss the FIR within Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The court emphasised the minor’s reliance as well as the legal issues of a live-in relationship.
In a related case, the Court earlier held that a person under the age of 18 cannot engage in a live-in relationship since it is both immoral and unlawful. It emphasised the need of being a major (above the age of 18) regardless of being younger than the marriageable age (21 years) for these partnerships.
Judgement: The request for quashing the FIR was denied by the Allahabad High Court, leading to the writ petition being denied. The Court’s ruling relied on the minor’s reliance on his parents for support, and it emphasised the importance of a minor’s involvement in a live-in relationship.
In a related instance, the Court stated that live-in relationships, particularly among younger people, are frequently motivated by infatuation and lack sincerity, with a likelihood to be temporary.
Case title: Anchal Rajbhar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Written By: Nikita Shankar @nikitaashankar
