Meghalaya and Allahabad high courts rule progressively on relationships

Meghalaya High Court has permitted quashing POCSO cases in consensual 'Romeo-Juliet' teen relationships. Allahabad High Court ruled that a married person can live with a consenting adult woman. These judgments strengthen personal liberty.

The bench of Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice HS Thangkhiew at Meghalaya High Court stated that POCSO Act cases in consensual teen 'Romeo-Juliet' relationships can be quashed under BNSS section 528. The court recognised the risk to education, career, and lives in such cases unless there is coercion or exploitation.

Allahabad High Court's bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena ruled that a married man's live-in relationship with a consenting adult woman is no crime. The court distinguished morality from law. However, a single bench of the same court denied legitimacy to a live-in without divorce.

These rulings underscore Article 21 of the Constitution on life and personal liberty. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Lata Singh and Hadiya cases, courts have kept love outside criminality.

関連記事

The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR against a married couple after the woman stated she had married of her own free will. The court rebuked Uttar Pradesh Police, saying such actions violate personal liberty, and ordered protection for the couple's matrimonial life.

AIによるレポート

The Delhi High Court has stated that refusing to marry due to a kundali mismatch after establishing physical relations on the promise of marriage can attract charges under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which criminalises sexual intercourse through deceitful means. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused bail to the accused, observing that physical relations were built over time on repeated assurances of marriage, including no impediment from kundali matching. The court noted this is not merely a case of a relationship turning sour.

The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench has ruled that mere marital discord cannot lead to abetment of suicide charges. In an order passed last week, the court quashed a 2019 Amravati case, stressing the need for direct instigation.

AIによるレポート

The Rajasthan High Court has removed portions of its March 30 judgment criticizing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, stating they were included by mistake. In an April 2 clarificatory order, the bench said the observations were neither intended nor necessary. The case stemmed from a petition by a transgender woman in the Rajasthan Police.

 

 

 

このウェブサイトはCookieを使用します

サイトを改善するための分析にCookieを使用します。詳細については、プライバシーポリシーをお読みください。
拒否