Kerala High Court declared adults in live-in relationships cannot be separated by writs

Must Read

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

Follow us

Kerala High Court in its judgment gave validity to live-in relationships when it decided that couples who have attained majority cannot be separated from each other through the use of writs just because they are in a live-in relationship. The changing Indian society is always reflected in the landmark verdicts decided on our courts.

Facts of the case

A distraught father resident of Alappuzha district, Kerala had filed a habeas corpus writ petition against an 18-year-old young Muslim man from the same locality stating that the man had taken illegal custody of his 19-year-old daughter. The couple was in a live-in relationship for quite some time against the wishes of the girl’s father. The father also alleged that as per the provisions of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, for marriage between a man and a woman to happen, the man must be 21 years old and the woman 18 years old which is not the case in this instance.

‘Live-in relationship’ means those relationships where there is no marriage between the parties, in the sense of solemnization of a marriage under any law. Yet the parties live as a couple, represent to the world that they are a couple and there are stability and continuity in the relationship. Such a relationship is also known as a ‘common law marriage’. (Also read: D  Veluswamy  Vs  D Patchaiammal).

The law do not specifically accept live-in relationships but Section 2(f) of the Protection   of   Women   from Domestic  Violence  Act,  2005 states – “domestic   relationship”   means  a relationship  between  two  persons  who live  or  have,  at  any  point  of  time,  lived together  in  a  shared  household,  when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

Court ruling

The case was heard by the Honourable Justices V Chitambaresh and K P Jyothindranath Division Bench of Kerala High Court who dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The judges placed reliance on the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Nandakumar & ANR. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors where the Apex Court had declared the Kerala High Court verdict to be “erroneously guided” and had set aside the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court in its judgment had categorically stated that the couple Nandakumar and Thushara were both adults in a relationship.

The Supreme Court observed that since “Thushara is admittedly a major i.e., more than 18 years of age, she has right to live wherever she wants to or move as per her choice. As she is not a minor daughter of respondent No. 4, “custody” of Thushara could not be I to him.” Also, the Court mentioned that even if, Nandakumar is not 21 years old at the time of their marriage, the said marriage cannot be considered “null and void. Such a marriage is not a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and as per the provisions of section 12.”

Impact of the judgment

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court stated, “it cannot close its eyes to the fact that live-in relationships have become rampant in society and such partners cannot be separated by the writ of habeas corpus.” The Court, thus, allowed the Muslim couple to be in this live-in relationship dismissing the habeas corpus petition of the girl’s father.

The Supreme Court had always been a pioneer in ushering and accepting changes both within the society and the dynamics of our legal system. The nuances in relationships which cannot be defined by the guiding principles of the law were always decided upon at the altar of the Supreme Court, and in this instance, Kerala High Court.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -