The Kerala High Court today held that High Court’s power to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be used to separate live-in partners, provided they have attained the age of majority.
A judgment to that effect was passed by a Bench of Justices V Chitambaresh and KP Jyothindranath in a petition filed by the father of a 19-year-old woman, praying for issuance of a Habeas Corpus writ.
The woman was living with her 18-year-old partner. Her father had moved the Court contending that his daughter was in the illegal custody of the respondent. It was his contention that since the respondent has not attained the age of 21 years, he was a child as defined by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It was, therefore, his argument that there could be no valid marriage between the detenue and the respondent.
Further, he pointed out that a child born out of such a union would be an illegitimate child. He also stated before the Court that he was willing to allow the detenue to go with the respondent after a legal marriage, but not under a live-in relationship.
The detenue and the respondent submitted that they were in love with each other since school days, and had attained majority.
The Court, after considering the submissions of the parties, noted that the detenue was living with the respondent out of her own volition. Therefore, it held that she had every right to live with the respondent even outside the wedlock, since live-in relationships were “statutorily recognised”.
The Court also cited its own judgment in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and the Supreme Court judgment in the Hadiya case in this regard.
Noting that live-in relationships have become common in our society, the Court held that such live-in partners cannot be separated by the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, provided they have attained the age of majority.
“We cannot close our eyes to the fact that live-in relationship has become rampant in our society and such living partners cannot be separated by the issue of a writ of habeas corpus provided they are major.”
The Court also made it clear that Constitutional courts are bound to respect the right of a major to have a live-in relationship even though the same may not be palatable to orthodox sections of the society.
“The Constitutional Court is bound to respect the unfettered right of a major to have live-in relationship even though the same may not be palatable to the orthodox section of the society.”
It, therefore, dismissed the writ petition declaring that the detenue is free to live with the respondent or marry him later on his attaining the marriageable age.
A judgment to that effect was passed by a Bench of Justices V Chitambaresh and KP Jyothindranath in a petition filed by the father of a 19-year-old woman, praying for issuance of a Habeas Corpus writ.
The woman was living with her 18-year-old partner. Her father had moved the Court contending that his daughter was in the illegal custody of the respondent. It was his contention that since the respondent has not attained the age of 21 years, he was a child as defined by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It was, therefore, his argument that there could be no valid marriage between the detenue and the respondent.
Further, he pointed out that a child born out of such a union would be an illegitimate child. He also stated before the Court that he was willing to allow the detenue to go with the respondent after a legal marriage, but not under a live-in relationship.
The detenue and the respondent submitted that they were in love with each other since school days, and had attained majority.
The Court, after considering the submissions of the parties, noted that the detenue was living with the respondent out of her own volition. Therefore, it held that she had every right to live with the respondent even outside the wedlock, since live-in relationships were “statutorily recognised”.
The Court also cited its own judgment in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and the Supreme Court judgment in the Hadiya case in this regard.
Noting that live-in relationships have become common in our society, the Court held that such live-in partners cannot be separated by the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, provided they have attained the age of majority.
“We cannot close our eyes to the fact that live-in relationship has become rampant in our society and such living partners cannot be separated by the issue of a writ of habeas corpus provided they are major.”
The Court also made it clear that Constitutional courts are bound to respect the right of a major to have a live-in relationship even though the same may not be palatable to orthodox sections of the society.
“The Constitutional Court is bound to respect the unfettered right of a major to have live-in relationship even though the same may not be palatable to the orthodox section of the society.”
It, therefore, dismissed the writ petition declaring that the detenue is free to live with the respondent or marry him later on his attaining the marriageable age.
No comments:
Post a Comment