petitioners sought protection and directed respondents not to interfere with their live-in relationship. The court dismissed the petition, holding it is not covered by law as no protection is granted for live-in relationships.
Writ petition dismissed; no safety or security to be provided by respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:234507
Court No. - 85
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38484 of 2023
Petitioner :- Adeeva And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in live in relationship life of the petitioners.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide adequate safety and security to the petitioners so that they may peacefully lead their life."
"21. However, in Muslim law no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage. "Zina" which has been defined as any sexual intercourse except that between husband and wife includes both
extramarital sex and premarital sex and is often translated as fornication in English. Such premarital sex is not permissible in Islam. In fact any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as kissing, touching, staring etc. are "Haram" in Islam before marriage because these are considered parts of "Zina" which may lead to actual "Zina" itself. The punishment for such offence according to Quran (chapter 24) is hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit fornication together with the punishment prescribed by the "Sunnah" for the married male and female that is stoning to death." It is observed that in muslim law live-inrelationship is not permitted. At one hand this fact is brought on record by petitioner No. 1 in statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had performed court marriage with the petitioner No. 2 on the other hand present petition has been filed seeking protection against live in relationship.
Order Date :- 11.12.2023 SY
Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State is obligated to provide safety to petitioners seeking protection against live-in relationships.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kiran Rawat & Another vs. State of U.P.Followed¶6
2023 SCC Online All 323 · Who else cites this
Adeeva & Another
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
