Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has ruled that live-in relationships cannot be protected under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if one of the partners is below the legally prescribed marriageable age.Dismissing a writ petition filed by a couple, Justice Garima Prashad observed that the court, in exercising its writ jurisdiction, cannot grant protection to a live-in relationship in a way that legitimises or enables a relationship that effectively serves as a substitute for a marriage which is not permitted under the existing legal framework governing marriageable capacity.“Neither parents, guardians, nor statutory authorities, including the child marriage prohibition officers, can be restrained from taking lawful steps in accordance with the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and other applicable laws, provided that such action remains within the bounds of law,” Justice Prashad added.In the present case, the first petitioner is a 20-year-old Muslim woman and the second is a 19-year-old Scheduled Caste Hindu man. It was alleged that the woman’s father was threatening the couple, who were in a live-in relationship, while the man’s family had no objection to their union. The petitioners moved the HC seeking protection of their life and liberty.Noting that the second petitioner was a minor and that the petition did not disclose specific details of the alleged threats, the court dismissed the writ petition on May 4.The high court, however, clarified that the parties would still be entitled to protection against harm, in view of their rights under the article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.The court was called upon to decide whether protection could be granted to a live-in couple when the male partner is under 21 years of age and is therefore considered a child under the law for marriage. The court noted that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 govern marriages in India and consistently prescribe the essential conditions for marriage, including minimum age requirements of 21 years for males and 18 years for females.The court further observed that under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, a male below 21 years of age and a female below 18 years of age are defined as “children”.Noting that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is a complete code against child marriages, the court held: “The need for such child marriage restriction legislation is also clear from the structure and purpose of the act itself. These laws exist because Parliament has recognized that premature unions often involve lack of maturity, lack of financial and emotional readiness, interruption of education, gendered vulnerability, and serious social and long-term consequences. The statute is not an obsolete formality. It is a modern welfare enactment responding to conditions that Parliament considered serious enough to warrant prevention, punishment, and institutional oversight.”The court noted that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prescribes the legal age for marriage and also provides penalties for violating its conditions, including age requirements. It further observed that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 similarly lays down the same minimum age criteria for marriage.The court further held that since child marriage is prohibited under the law, it cannot, by judicial order, prevent lawful parental intervention aimed at stopping such marriages. It clarified that while parents or family members are not permitted to use threats, violence, coercion, or unlawful detention, they are not barred from taking legal steps such as approaching the police, informing the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, or moving the competent magistrate under the relevant law.
