Society and family also cannot oppose live-in relationship, HC’s comment

Mumbai. While hearing a case, the Bombay High Court has called ‘live-in relationship’ a right of the couple. The court said that if a Hindu girl and a Muslim boy want to live in a ‘live-in relationship’, then they should not be stopped. The court said, “Since this is an integral part of their right to live with dignity by making a personal choice in personal relationship. Therefore, the couple cannot be deprived of this right, which is given to two individuals under the Constitution, just because of social disapproval.” The bench of Justice Bharti Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said this while directing the girl to be released from the shelter home, where she was kept by the police.

The High Court bench directed, “We have before us two adults who have chosen each other as life partners to live in a ‘live in relationship’ with full consent and consciousness. No law prevents them from living the life of their choice, therefore we deem it appropriate to order the immediate release of the girl from the custody of the Government Women’s Begging Centre.” The bench said that being an adult, she has made her choice and she has made it clear that she wants to live her life on her own terms. The bench said, “They can understand the concern of the girl’s parents, who are interested in securing her future, but the girl is an adult, she has exercised her freedom of choice, therefore in our opinion we are not allowed to restrict her freedom of choice. Under the law, she is entitled to take this decision.” Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sony Gerry vs Gerry Douglas, the High Court bench said that the court should not play the role of super guardian inspired by any kind of emotion of the mother or the ego of the father.

However, the bench refused to grant police protection sought by the boy in the petition. The bench spoke to the girl for about an hour and then said, “When she expressed before us that she is ready to live in a live-in relationship with the petitioner, her thoughts are clear, because she is an adult and the petitioner is also an adult. She does not express her desire to get married at this stage of life.” The bench said, “As an ‘adult’, it is her decision that she does not want to live with her parents nor does she want to stay in an shelter home but she wants to live her life as a free individual who is not physically restricted or controlled by others. She is capable of making her own choices and decisions. Accordingly, she is entitled to the freedom to decide what is right for her and which will not be determined by her birth parents or society.”