Allahabad High Court refuses protection to interfaith couple: Why being a ‘child’ at 19 blocks live-in rights?

‘Used as alternative to marriage’

Justice Prashad held that the live-in relationship in the present case was being used as an alternative to marriage because the law did not currently permit the parties to marry.

“What cannot be achieved either as a valid secular marriage or as a pleaded lawful marriage under the applicable personal-law framework cannot be judicially reconstituted as a sanctioned live-in arrangement,” the Allahabad High Court observed.

It emphasised that a live-in relationship involving cohabitation is, in practical substance, a relationship like marriage, and If such a relationship is consciously adopted because the law withholds the right to marry until a later age, then a court order protecting its continuance begins to operate as an indirect sanction for a presently impermissible marriage-like arrangement.

The Allahabad High Court further observed that where a girl is below 18 years of age, the law does not recognise her consent to enter into a marriage or even a marriage-like relationship, and such relationships are treated as impermissible despite claims of consent, attracting stringent provisions such as those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Applying the same principle, the court held that where a male is below 21 years of age and is treated as a “child” for the purposes of marriage under the statutory framework, consent cannot be used to bypass the legal restriction.

“A relationship cannot be permitted merely because it is described as consensual, when the law itself treats one of the parties as lacking the capacity to enter into such a union,” the court remarked.

At the same time, the court clarified that individuals in such relationships are still entitled to protection against unlawful acts such as violence, illegal detention, coercion, or abduction. However, it noted that parents, guardians, or child marriage prohibition officers cannot be restrained from taking lawful steps under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

“Where the statute itself places responsibility upon parents and guardians to prevent child marriage, the court cannot pass an order which, in effect, restrains them from taking lawful steps in discharge of that duty,” the court observed.

Principle laid down by court

The court answered the issues framed in the following terms-

• Court cannot grant protection to a live-in relationship in a manner that confers legitimacy upon a relationship which, in substance, operates as a substitute for a marriage that is presently impermissible under the statutory framework governing capacity to marry.
• Even if such a relationship does not receive legal recognition, the individuals concerned remain entitled to protection against harm, illegal detention, abduction, or coercion.
• 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.

Dismissing the petition, the court noted that the allegations of threats made by the couple were vague and unsupported by particulars or any prior complaint to the police.

It, however, observed that the petitioners would remain free to approach authorities if they faced any specific unlawful acts.

Plea for protection

The interfaith couple said that they were unable to marry under the Special Marriage Act because the male partner had not completed 21 years of age. They alleged that the woman’s father was threatening them and pressuring them to end the relationship.

Therefore, they had sought directions from the police authorities to restrain their family members from interfering in their cohabitation as a live-in relationship.