Can’t call lustful affairs without divorce live-in relationship: High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 13

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the relationship of a person living a “lustful and adulterous life” with a woman during subsistence of his earlier marriage without obtaining valid decree of divorce from his spouse does not fall within the phrase of ‘live-in relationship’ or ‘relationship’ in the nature of marriage.

The assertion came as Justice Kuldeep Tiwari dismissed a petition filed by a couple seeking protection of their lives and liberty. Directions were also sought from the state and other respondents against falsely implicating them in any false criminal case at the behest of friends and relatives. The couple, during the course of hearing, told the Bench that they have been in a ‘live-in relationship’ since September. Their relationship had been accepted by the boy’s family. But it had caused grievance to the girl’s family. As a result, her family had threatened to kill them. As such, they were apprehending danger to their lives and liberty and were constrained to approach the court for protection of their live and liberty.

Justice Tiwari observed the girl in the live-in relationship was unmarried. But the boy had been married and a child born out of the wedlock, now two, was residing with him. The petition mentioned the fact regarding the institution of a divorce case before Patiala family court. But the ultimate fate of the divorce case was not disclosed in the petition, impelling the court to draw an inference that the matter was still subjudice.

“Therefore, without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from his earlier spouse and during subsistence of his earlier marriage, the petitioner-boy is living a lustful and adulterous life with the petitioner-girl, which may constitute an offence punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC (offence of bigamy). As such, the relationship does not fall within the phrase of ‘live-in relationship’ or ‘relationship’ in the nature of marriage,” Justice Tiwari observed.

In his detailed order, Justice Tiwari added only bald and vague allegations regarding threats being extended to the petitioners by the private respondents were made. Supportive material was not placed on record by the petitioners to corroborate their allegations.

Besides, not even a single instance was mentioned pertaining to the manner and mode of alleged threats being extended to the petitioners. As such, bald and vague allegations could not be readily and naively accepted by the court in the absence of valid and convincing supporting material. The petition, on the face of it, was instituted to avoid criminal prosecution in case of adultery.

Offence of bigamy

Without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from his spouse and during subsistence of his earlier marriage, the petitioner-boy is living a lustful and adulterous life with the petitioner-girl, which may constitute an offence punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC...” Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.