Gwalior: The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently allowed a major couple to live-in together, saying both the petitioners are major being above 18 years of age and their choice needs to be protected from the external forces.
The High Court, however, expressed its concern over the choice of the petitioners couple to enter into live-in relationship as at such a tender age.
Man was less than 21 years of age and not competent to marry
Both the petitioners – the live-in couple – before the High Court were more than 18 years of age and majors. Though the man was less than 21 years of age and not competent to marry but still both the petitioners are living together with each other. It was the case of the petitioners that biological mother of the woman has expired and she has started living with the man out of her own volition as the atmosphere in the house was not conducive for her to reside.
What did the High Court say?
“This court is inclined to allow the present petition despite the fact that petitioner no. 1 is less than 21 years of age because both the petitioners are shown to be major being above 18 years of age and their choice needs to be protected from the external forces,” Justice Vivek Jain said while allowing the plea of the couple for protection of life and liberty.
“However, this court expresses its concern over the choice of the petitioners to enter into live in relationship as at such a tender age they may not be emotionally fully mature and economically fully independent. The petitioners are expected to exercise maturity while getting such protection from this court,” Justice Jain added.
What did the counsels for live-in couple, State submit?
The counsel representing the live-in couple argued before the court that the Supreme Court in a verdict opined that when both the persons are major and they are not competent to enter into wedlock but still have right to live together even outside wedlock and submitted that the petitioners who are not entered into wedlock may be protected from any violation by any person including their parents.
The counsel representing the State opposed the plea of the petitioners on the ground that the man is not competent to marry and such protection would not be in the larger interest of society.
The High Court, after hearing submissions from the parties and taking note of the judgments of the Supreme Court, allowed the plea of the live-in couple for protection of life and liberty.
“Petition is allowed and the respondents nos. 2 to 4 are directed to look into the grievance raised by the petitioners and shall examine the grievance of the petitioner regarding their life and liberty. They will be at liberty to verify the factum of age of the petitioners,” the High Court said.
