Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday talked tough to a young interfaith couple seeking judicial intervention for police protection to continue their live-in relationship. The bench of Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande stated that the police cannot be expected to ensure their safety simply because they wished to live together.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a 20-year-old Muslim man seeking the release of his 19-year-old Hindu girlfriend from a government shelter home. The woman had voluntarily left her parental home to reside with the petitioner but was later placed in the facility by the police following her parents’ complaint.
The plea alleged that the parents’ complaint was influenced by members of the Bajrang Dal and other social and political groups who pressured the woman to sever ties with the petitioner.
It claimed that during her visit to the police station, she was subjected to intimidation and coercion to abandon her relationship, but she expressed her wish to marry the petitioner and refused to return to her family.
Advocate Sana Raees Khan, representing the woman’s father, argued that the petition was not maintainable, as the man was not yet of marriageable age. In India, the legal age for men to marry is 21.
However, the bench emphasised the woman’s autonomy, remarking, “The girl is a major, and she cannot be forced to stay with her parents.”
The judges noted the societal backlash the woman faced, including harassment on social media, but questioned the practicality of granting the couple’s request for police protection.
“Who will secure her if we let her free and if she starts staying with you?” Justice Dangre asked. “You want police force to be deployed outside your house because you want to be in a live-in relationship? As if the police have nothing better to do. What do we do practically with this scenario? Give us practical solutions.”
“Don’t expect us to provide police protection to you,” the court warned, adding that state resources could not be expended to cater to personal choices that challenge societal norms.
The judges recounted their earlier interaction with the woman, describing her as a “rebel” determined to live on her terms. In oral remarks, Justice Dangre noted that the woman was living in a “fantasy world” and that she seemed unprepared for the realities of life.
The bench also expressed concern over the potential consequences of a live-in relationship, particularly if the relationship were to end.
“We asked her, what will you do if the boy impregnates you and leaves? She said, ‘ji lungi (I’ll live)’. All filmy dialogues,” it said.
The bench also referenced the woman’s claims that her father tried to coerce her into agreeing not to claim any right over his property and had arranged her marriage against her will.
“We told her that you can always run away from marriage. As it is, you have run away twice. She said yes, she can always do that,” the bench noted.
The court allowed the woman’s father to meet her at the shelter home to ascertain if she had reconsidered her decision but refrained from granting custody to the petitioner or police protection for their relationship.
