Rajasthan HC dismisses protection plea of a married woman in live-in relationship, terms it "illicit relationship"
text_fields
The Rajasthan High Court in an order termed the live-in relationship between a man and a married woman as "illicit, anti-social and also against the law" and argued that they were "not entitled to get protection".
The single-judge bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma denied the petitioners' request for police protection that granting police protection to the petitioners would "amount to indirectly giving permission/acceptance to such illicit relationships".
The plea which was jointly filed by a 30-year-old married woman and a 27-year-old man from the Jhunjhunu district had said that they are being threatened by the respondents and their lives are in danger.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners are adults and are consensually in a live-in relationship. The petition also says the woman was forced to live separately from her husband because of his physical abuse. The petitioners had requested police protection on this ground.
The counsel for the respondents — the woman's husband and his family — had said during the hearing that the relationship between the two petitioners "is illicit, anti-social and also against the law" and had argued that they were "not entitled to get protection".
However, the order by the court of Justice Sharma on August 12 said: "It is clear from examining all the documents of both sides that petitioner number 1 is already married. She hasn't got a divorce but despite that, she is staying with petitioner number 2 in a live-in relationship. In such a scenario, the live-in relationship between the two comes under the category of an illicit relationship."
"Apart from the aforementioned, if any crime is committed with the petitioners, they are free to lodge a report with the concerned police station or avail other available legal remedies," the order.
Justice Sharma also cited a recent order of the Allahabad High Court, wherein it had rejected the request for police protection in a similar case saying live-in relationship cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this country.