Extra-Marital Relationship Is Not Recognized Under Indian Law- Allahabad HC Dismisses Petition Of Married Woman With Cost
On a plea seeking protection of the lives of petitioners claiming to be husband and wife, the Allahabad High Court observed that the petition was filed to obtain the seal of the Court on their illegal relationship since the 1st petitioner's marriage with the 3rd respondent had not been dissolved.
"Constitution of India may permit live-in relation but, this writ petition is nothing else but filed with a purpose of obtaining seal of this Court on their illegal relationship.", the Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi observed.
The Bench also observed in its Order that in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Indra Sarma vs. V.K. Sarma, "it cannot be said that the relationship outside the matrimony has also to be recognized under Indian law". The Court added, "Paragraph 52 of the said judgment categorically mentions that Live-in relation as such is a relation which has not been socially accepted in India unlike many other Countries".
In this case, a writ petition was filed by a man and woman seeking protection of their lives from her husband. The woman-petitioner was married to Respondent. It was her version that she was being harassed as he had come into contact with bad elements and used to come home only at midnight.
She alleged that the respondent came with his friends and wanted her to have illicit relations with his friends which she refused and at night, when her husband and children were sleeping, she left the matrimonial home.
Advocate Shyam Shankar Mishra appeared for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appeared for the State.
The Court observed that it is not disclosed as to since when the petitioners were living as husband and wife. Further when the respondent threatened their relation was also not disclosed, the Court noted.
"Petitioner No.1 wants to live with petitioner No.2 without taking proper divorce and/or she does not even want to have marital relationship with respondent No.3 and no reasons have been assigned for such a drastic step.", the Court further observed.
The Court stated that "Thus, saying that India is governed by Constitution of India and we are not living in primitive days makes no difference as in the present case it cannot be said that petitioners are living as husband and wife and it is evident from the record and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of petitioner No.1, Sunita Devi, with respondent No.3, Ranveer Singh, has not yet been dissolved."
"In the present case, nothing is demonstrated that the husband, respondent No.3, has even remotely threatened this relationship. The threatening, if any, can be culled out is, of the incident narrated in the complaint dated 1.9.2021. The police would investigate this if at all there is semblance of truth in accordance with law.", the Court observed.
The Court dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 5000.