Porni Banerjee | ০৯ মে ২০২৪ ১৫ : ২২

A Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on Wednesday has upheld that any married Muslim cannot claim the right to a live-in relationship if their spouse is alive as Islamic tenets do not permit such relationships. The court however added that things might be different if there are two unmarried individuals who, being adults, choose to live the lives the way they prefer.

“Islamic tenets do not permit live-in relationships during an existing marriage. The position may be different if the two people are unmarried and the parties being majors chose to lead their lives in a way of their own,” the court said.

The two-judge bench comprising justices AR Masoodi and AK Srivastava made the observation on Wednesday while hearing a petition filed by a couple Sneha Devi and Mohd Shadab Khan who sought police protection after the woman’s family registered a complaint saying that she was kidnapped by Khan and asked Sneha be sent back to her parents under security.

The couple, however, appealed for protection of their lives and personal liberty (under Article 21) and said that as adults, they were free to be in a live-in relationship as per norms laid down by the apex court. The bench, however, later learnt that Khan was married to Farida Khatoon since 2020 and that they had a baby from their marriage.

The court therefore refused to pass an order on the issue of protection of life and personal liberty.

“The constitutional morality may come to the rescue of such a couple and the social morality settled through the customs and usages over ages may give way to the constitutional morality and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may step in to protect the cause,” the court said during the couple’s plea of seeking protection under Article 21.

“The constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would not lend an un-canalised support to such a right, once the usages and customs prohibit such a relationship between the two individuals of different faiths,” the bench added.