Allahabad HC refuses protection to live-in couple, says partner below marriage age

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has rejected a writ petition by a live-in couple seeking protection, observing that such relationships cannot be protected in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, if one of the partners is below the statutorily prescribed marriageable age.

"This court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot grant protection to a live-in relationship in a manner that confers legitimacy upon, or facilitates the continuation of a relationship which in substance operates as a substitute for a marriage that is presently impermissible under the statutory framework governing capacity to marry," Justice Garima Prashad observed.

Further, the court held, "Neither parents, guardians, nor statutory authorities including the Child Marriage Prohibition Officers can be restrained from taking lawful steps in accordance with the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and other applicable laws, provided that such action remains within the bounds of law."

In the present case, the first petitioner is a Muslim woman aged about 20 years and the second petitioner is a scheduled caste Hindu male aged about 19 years.

The petitioners approached the high court seeking protection of their life and liberty.

It was pleaded that the father of the woman was threatening the parties who were in a live-in relationship while the family of the man did not have any problem with them.

The question before the court was whether protection could be granted to a live-in couple when the male is below 21 years of age and is statutorily a "child" for the purpose of marriage.

The court observed that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 govern marriages in India and uniformly provide the requirements for marriage including minimum age which is 21 for males and 18 for females.

The court further noted that under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, any male below the age of 21 years and female below the age of 18 years was referred to as "child".

It observed that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 also provides the age of marriage and provides punishment for contravention of the provisions containing conditions of marriage including age.

The court held that when child marriage is prohibited, it cannot stop parental intervention by judicial order to prevent such marriages.

Accordingly, while parents or family members cannot resort to threats, violence, coercion or illegal confinement, they cannot be restrained from taking lawful steps such as approaching the police, informing the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, or initiating proceedings before the competent magistrate under the statute.

Holding that the petitioner number two was a "child" and that no specifics of the threats were detailed in the petition, the court dismissed the writ petition in a judgment dated May 4.

The high court, however, clarified that the parties would still be entitled to protection against harm in view of their rights under the Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.