LUCKNOW: With the increasing cases of the killing of women engaged in live-in relationships, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that it was difficult for a woman to live alone after such a relationship ended as Indian society, still at large did not accept and recognise such relationships.
The Court gave this observation on February 14, this year while hearing a bail application of a man who was arrested for not fulfilling his promise to marry the woman who had been his live-in partner.
While granting bail to the applicant Aditya Raj Verma, the single judge bench, comprising Justice Siddharth, noted that the woman in a live-in relationship was left with no option but to lodge a case against her partner in such a situation.
"...this is one case where the disastrous consequences of live-in relationship have come on the scene. It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking off a live-in relationship. The Indian society at large does not recognise such a relationship. The woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in the present case," the order said.
As per the prosecution, the couple were in a live-in relationship for over a year. The woman was earlier married to another man with whom she had two sons. Later, she went with the applicant and started a live-in relationship. Consequently, she became pregnant but the applicant refused to marry her.
The woman got an FIR lodged against the applicant alleging that he used to send her objectionable photographs to her ex-husband following which he also refused to accept her.
As a result, the applicant was booked under Sections 376 (rape) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Counsel for the applicant argued that the woman was a major and she entered into a live-in relationship with the accused willingly. She was capable of understanding the consequence of such a relationship and there was no allegation that the relationship started with the promise of marriage, he added.
It was further argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and that he was in jail since November 22, last year, even without any criminal history.
However, after hearing all the sides, and given the nature of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused and other grounds, the Court granted bail to the applicant.