Court affirms rights of consenting adults to choose partners without interference from family or society.
AI-generated summary
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides legal recognition for live-in relationships in India. The court ruling reinforces existing constitutional protections for individual liberty.
The petitioning couple, both in their 30s, told the court that they had been living together "for a while" and intended to marry.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has held that a live-in relationship between consenting adults is akin to marriage, and neither parents nor friends can interfere with their choice or threaten their lives. According to news agency PTI, Justice Saurabh Banerjee granted police protection to a live-in couple facing threats from the woman’s family, observing that, as consenting adults, they had "all rights to choose and reside" with a partner of their choice without interference from anyone.
The judge, in an order passed on August 13 on the couple's petition, observed that marriages are recognised irrespective of the caste, creed, colour, religion or faith of the consenting adults, and curtailing their fundamental rights, which are guaranteed under the Constitution, by "societal morals and prejudices" was a deprivation of one's very individualistic identity.
"Since the petitioners have willingly, consensually and with utmost responsibility chosen to enter into a live-in relationship with each other, nobody, be it their parents/ relatives/ friends, have a right and/ or authority to cause any hinderance and/ or interfere with their choice thereof, much less threaten their life and/ or liberty," the court said.
"The petitioners herein are though in a live-in relationship, are not legally married to each, however, being consenting adults, the same is akin to marriage," it stated. The petitioning couple, both in their 30s, told the court that they had been living together "for a while" and intended to marry. However, the woman’s father and brother were allegedly opposed to their relationship and had been repeatedly threatening them with violence, the court was informed. The couple said they had approached the local Station House Officer (SHO) with a complaint, but no action was taken.
This now has due sanctity in the eyes of law, and has even been recognised by the legislature under provisions such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it added.
US District Judge Jeannette Vargas has invalidated a Trump administration policy that suspended immigrant visas for applicants from 75 countries, ruling the measure violates federal immigration law and exceeds the Secretary of State's authority.
Former Meta product design manager James Tillinghast is suing the company, alleging he was fired for refusing to sign an immigration support letter he deemed inaccurate and for raising concerns regarding unequal immigration assistance provided to certain employees.
Meta is on trial in Oakland, California, as 29 US states allege the company designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive for minors, concealed internal research on mental health harms, and violated child privacy laws. The case could result in massive penalties.
A petition in India's Supreme Court challenges Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra's prolonged tenure, seeking his removal, term limits, fresh elections, and an audit of BCI finances amid controversies.
A federal lawsuit filed by the estate of former Piedmont Airlines employee Niena Allen alleges a racially hostile work environment at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, citing incidents including mocked George Floyd death, KKK imagery, and a noose.
Pravesh Aggarwal won a case in ITAT Delhi after being penalised Rs 3.74 lakh for failing to file his ITR on time due to missing Form 16 during a job switch, as TDS was already deducted.