Mumbai, India (CU)_ According to Madhya Pradesh High Court, the bane of live-in relationships, which is a byproduct of the rights provided under Article 21 of the Constitution, is contributing to an increased sexual offenses and promiscuity. Justice Subodh Abhyankar of the high court’s Indore bench made the statement while denying a 25-year-old man’s pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail request for raping a lady.
According to the order dated April 12, the court stated, “Taking note of the spurt of such offenses in recent times arising out of live-in relationships, this court is forced to observe that the bane of live-in-relationship is a by-product of Constitutional guarantee as provided under Art. 21, engulfing the ethos of Indian society, and promoting lascivious behaviour, giving further rise to sexual offences.” Article 21 protects both the right to life and the right to personal liberty.
The courts have broadened its jurisdiction throughout time to cover a variety of issues, including the right to dignity and privacy. Emphasizing the increase in legal conflicts originating from live-in relationships, the high court stated, “Those who wanted to exploit this freedom are quick to embrace it, but are totally ignorant that it has its own limitations, and does not confer any right on any of the partners to such relationship.”
According to the court, the case diary and records indicated that the accused woman became pregnant more than twice and underwent abortion under duress from the applicant, who is her ex-live-in spouse. The judge stated that when the couple broke their relationship, the woman was engaged to another person, but the applicant who felt like a rejected lover resorted to blackmailing her.
According to the court, the applicant even sent video messages to the woman’s would-be in-laws, threatening that he would commit suicide, and that they, along with the woman’s family, would be held accountable for it. The high court stated that this resulted in the woman’s marriage being annulled, pointing to the prosecution’s case. In this case, Amit Singh Sisodia argued as a representative of the state government.
