24 Jun 2023 6:49 AM GMT
While dismissing a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection against alleged harassment at the hands of the police, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that in Islam, any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as kissing, touching, staring etc before marriage is prohibited.Noting that the couple/petitioners [a 29-year-old Hindu Woman and a 30-year-old Muslim Man]...
While dismissing a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection against alleged harassment at the hands of the police, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that in Islam, any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as kissing, touching, staring etc before marriage is prohibited.
Noting that the couple/petitioners [a 29-year-old Hindu Woman and a 30-year-old Muslim Man] had not expressed their willingness to marry in the near future, the bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari added that in Muslim law, no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage.
"Zina which has been defined as any sexual intercourse except that between husband and wife includes both extramarital sex and premarital sex and is often translated as fornication in English. Such premarital sex is not permissible in Islam. In fact any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as kissing, touching, staring etc. are "Haram" in Islam before marriage because these are considered parts of 'Zina' which may lead to actual 'Zina' itself," the Court
"The punishment for such offence according to Quran (chapter 24) is hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit fornication together with the punishment prescribed by the 'Sunnah' for the married male and female that is stoning to death," the bench further added.
These observations were made by the division bench while dealing with the protection plea (against police harassment) filed by an interfaith couple alleging that the mother of the woman is unhappy with their Live In relation and that an FIR had been lodged against them.
Essentially, in their plea, the petitioners had, inter alia, averred that they are facing harassment from the police and hence, they should be given protection by the Court as their case is squarely covered with the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of UP (2006).
To this, the Court, at the outset, noted that the views expressed by the Supreme Court pertaining to 'live-in' relationships "cannot be considered to promote such relationships".
Read more details of the Court's observations here: 'SC's Views On 'Live-In' Matters Can't Be Considered To Promote Such Relations': Allahabad HC Rejects Interfaith Live-In Couple's Protection Plea
Referring to the observations of the SC in other cases [D Velusamy vs D Patchaiammal (2010), Nandakumar vs State of Kerala (2018), Dhanu Lal vs. Ganesh Ram (2015), etc] wherein it touched upon the nature of Live-In relationship in light of Law of the land, the High Court observed thus:
"The Observations of the Supreme Court as aforesaid however cannot be considered to promote such relationships. Law traditionally has been biased in favour of marriage. It reserves many rights and privileges to married persons to preserve and encourage the institution of marriage. the Supreme Court is simply accepting a social reality and it has no intention to unravel the fabric of Indian family life"
The Court added as to how the Supreme Court has, on several occasions, observed that section 125 CrPC is not meant for granting of maintenance to the "other woman", where a man, having a living lawfully wedded wife, either marries for a second time or starts living with a concubine. The Court also noted that the Top Court has refused to extend the meaning of the word wife as denoted in section 125 of the CrPC to include such live-in partners for maintenance claims.
In its order, the Court also emphasised the need to create awareness in young minds regarding the emotional and societal pressures and legal hassles which may be created by live-in relations.
"Awareness has to be created in young minds not just from the point of view of emotional and societal pressures that such relationships may create, but also from the perspective that it could give rise to various legal hassles on issues like division of property, violence and cheating within live-in relationships, rehabilitation in case of desertion by or death of a partner and handling of custody and other issues when it comes to children born from such relationships. Partners in a live-in relationship do not enjoy an automatic right of inheritance to the property of their partner."
Against this backdrop, adverting to the facts of the instant case, the Court, while noting that the petitioners, in their plea, have only alleged that they being major are entitled to live with whomsoever they like and the mother of petitioner No.1 is unhappy with this relationship, observed thus:
"Writ jurisdiction being extraordinary jurisdiction is not made to resolve such type of dispute between two private parties. We believe that it is a social problem which can be uprooted socially and not by the intervention of the Writ Court in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless harassment is established beyond doubt."
The Court further opined that if there is any real grievance of a live-in couple against their parents or relatives, who are allegedly interfering with their live-in status which goes to such an extent that there is a threat of life, they are at liberty to lodge an FIR under Section 154 (1) or Section 154 (3) CrPC, with the Police, move an application under section 156 (3) CrPC before the competent Court or file a complaint case under Section 200 CrPC.
Case title - Kiran Rawat And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3310 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Click Here To Read/Download Order