Constitutional rights need not always be enforced: Madhya Pradesh High Court cautions live-in couple seeking protection

The state had argued that giving protection to such couples would not be in the larger interest of society as it would “promote promiscuousness”.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court also asked the counsel representing the couple to apprise the teens about the concerns it expressed regarding their relationship. (File)

While granting protection to a teenage couple in a live-in relationship, the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed concern over their decision to live together against their parents’ wishes and also observed that while “certain rights have been conferred by the Constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy and enforce them”.

Hearing a petition by the couple – both 19 years old – who feared they were under threat from the girl’s family, Justice Subodh Abhyankar said in his order, “This Court must record its concern on the choices the youngsters are making these days. Although there is much to ponder over this subject, it must be remembered that even though certain rights have been conferred by the Constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy, and enforce them as well.”

In the order dated March 14, the court directed the Station House Officer of the local police station to provide his mobile number to the couple so that they could reach him in case of an emergency.

Story continues below this ad

Express Opinion | For Uttarakhand’s live-in couples, the State could become an unwelcome third wheel

At the same time, the court also asked the counsel representing the couple to apprise the teens about the concerns it expressed regarding their relationship.

“India is not a country where the State provides any allowance to the unemployed and the uneducated ones. Thus, if you are not dependent on your parents, you have to earn your own and your partner’s livelihood and this would naturally obviate the possibility of going to school or college. And if you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only your chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected, but your acceptance in society is also reduced,” the court said.

“It is far more difficult for a girl, who can also become pregnant at an early age, leading to further complications in her life,” the court added.

The state had opposed the couple’s petition, submitting that the boy, at just 19, was not even of marriageable age.

Story continues below this ad

The state had also argued that giving protection to such couples would not be in the larger interest of society as it would “promote promiscuousness”.

However, the counsel representing the couple cited a Supreme Court judgement in which it was observed that an adult couple, even if not yet at the legal age for marriage, have the right to live together.

The High Court allowed the petition filed by the couple in view of the Supreme Court’s observations on the subject.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram