Bombay High Court: The present writ petition was filed by petitioner with a prayer for issuance of writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding respondents to produce ‘A’ before this Court and set her at liberty. Further, a declaration was sought that detention of ‘A’ in Shaskriya Stree Bhishekari Khikar Kendra, a Government Women Centre, at Chembur, Mumbai was unlawful, and she should be permitted to reside at a place of her choice. Petitioner also sought adequate police protection for himself and ‘A’, ensuring their safety against any threats or interference from respondents or the members of public and ensure solemnization of their marriage in accordance with law as and when they fit proper, free from any coercion or obstruction.
The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., after considering that petitioner and ‘A’, being two adults, had consensually chosen each other as their partners by making a conscious choice of living in a ‘live in relationship’ and since no law prevented them to lead life of their own choice, direct the release of ‘A’ from the custody of Shaskriya Stree Bhishekari Khikar Kendra.
Background
Petitioner stated that he had been in relationship with ‘A’ for several months and both of them were adults. They mutually agreed to marry, thereby exercising their fundamental right to choose a life partner and their relationship had been consensual, devoid of any coercion or undue influence. It was further stated that when ‘A’ joined petitioner’s company, her family lodged a report in Ghatkopar Police station as they disapproved their relationship. The complaint was influenced by involvement of members of religious factions, political, and social workers, etc., seeking to pressurize ‘A’ in severing her relationship with petitioner and returning her to her parental home. She remained firm on her intention to cohabit with petitioner and refused to return to her parents.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to Maya Angelou’s remark which stated that “Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope”.
The Court noted that petitioner and the girl ‘A’ belonged to different religions and their relationship was disapproved by the girl’s family and petitioner, being 20 years old, was stated to be not of marriageable age. The Court, after interacting with petitioner and ‘A’, opined that it was clear that ‘A’ was not ready to accompany her parents, nor she was ready to continue her stay with Rrespondent 4-the Superintendent of the Women Centre. The Court stated that ‘A’ insisted on joining petitioner’s and his mother’s company, despite all odds and objections and the pressure to which she was subjected to.
The Court relied on Devu G v. State of Kerala, and opined that the present petition filed by petitioner, for protecting the right of ‘A’ whom he claimed to be in relationship with deserved to be entertained.
The Court observed that as there could be no valid marriage between petitioner and ‘A’ as petitioner had not attained the age of majority, ‘A’ therefore clearly expressed that she intended to continue to live with him in a ‘live in relationship’. The Court did not agree with the contention that the relationship in the present case would be equated with a “relationship in the nature of marriage” as “a relationship in the nature of Marriage” was akin to a common law marriage. The Court relied on D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, , wherein it was held that if the relationship was akin to a common law marriage though not being formally married, it must necessarily involve (a) the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses (b) they must be of legal age to marry (c) they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried and (d) they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
The Court opined that necessarily all live in relationships would not amount to “relationship in the nature of marriage”.
The Court stated that Respondents 5 and 6-parents of ‘A’ were concerned and interested in securing her future, but when she had exercised her freedom to make a choice, the Court opined that it was not permissible to restrict her freedom of making the choice, which she was entitled to in law.
The Court opined that petitioner and ‘A’ desired a ‘live in relationship’ and as an integral part of their right to live with dignity, by making individual choice in personal relationship, merely because of the societal disapproval, the couple could not be deprived of this right, which was conferred on the two individuals, under the Constitution.
The Court, after considering that the two adults had consensually chosen each other as their partners by making a conscious choice of living in a ‘live in relationship’ and since no law prevented them to lead life of their own choice, direct the release of ‘A’ from the custody of Shaskriya Stree Bhishekari Khikar Kendra. The Court stated that upon release, ‘A’ was entitled to live her life according to her own choice. The Court secured freedom of ‘A’ by directing her release but declined the relief of providing police protection.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition (ST) No. 24433 of 2024, decided on 13-12-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Lokesh Zade a/w Asif Latif Shaikh, Abid Abbas Sayyed, P.S. Bankar for Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Sana Raees Khan a/w Anjali Joshi, Rajesh Shirke for Respondents 5 and 6; D.J. Haldankar, APP for the State.
The post appeared first on .