By PTI
INDORE: The “bane of live-in relationship”, a “byproduct” of rights conferred underneath Article 21 of the Constitution, is resulting in an increase in sexual offences and promiscuity, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has stated.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar of the Indore bench of the excessive court docket made the commentary whereas rejecting a pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail plea of a 25-year-old man accused of raping a girl.
In the order dated April 12, the court docket stated, “Taking note of the spurt of such offences 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 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The courts, over the years, have widened its ambit to cover many things including the right to dignity and privacy.”
Highlighting the rise in authorized disputes arising out of live-in relationships, the excessive court docket 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.”
The court docket famous that the case diary and paperwork revealed that the complainant lady bought pregnant greater than twice and aborted the foetus underneath strain from the applicant (her then live-in accomplice). “When their relationship fell apart, the woman got engaged to some other person, but the applicant, being a jilted lover resorted to blackmailing her,” the choose stated.
The applicant even despatched video messages to the would-be in-laws of the lady the place he threatened that he would commit suicide and they’d even be held answerable for it in addition to the lady’s household, the court docket famous.
This led to the cancellation of the lady’s marriage, the excessive court docket stated, citing the prosecution’s case. Amit Singh Sisodia argued on behalf of the state authorities on this case.
