The court said, ‘Zina has been defined as any sexual intercourse except that between husband and wife, such premarital sex is not permissible in Islam, any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as kissing, touching, staring, etc. are “Haram” in Islam before marriage’
An interfaith live-in couple’s request for police protection was denied by the Allahabad High Court on June 24. The couple had went to the court to ask for protection from what they claimed was police harassment. The High Court noted that Islam forbids any sexual, lustful, or loving activities such as kissing, caressing, looking, etc. prior to marriage.
The court noted that the 30-year-old Muslim male and the 29-year-old Hindu woman did not exhibit any signs of impending marriage. The two-judge panel, which was made up of Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Narendra Kumar Johari, then said that Muslim law does not acknowledge sexual encounters that don’t involve marriage.
According to the court, zina—which is sometimes translated as fornication in English—is defined as any sexual activity other than that which occurs between a husband and wife. This includes both extramarital and premarital sex. In Islam, such premarital sex is forbidden. In fact, all sexual, lustful, or affectionate behaviours before marriage—including kissing, touching, looking, etc.—are deemed “Haram” in Islam because they are seen as components of “Zina,” which can result in genuine “Zina” itself.
“The punishment for such an offence according to the Quran (chapter 24) is a hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit fornication together with the punishment prescribed by the ‘Sunnah’ for the married male and female, which is stoning to death,” the bench continued.
Claim of the Petitioner and significant Court remarks
In essence, the petitioners said they were being harassed by the police. The couple argued that the Apex Court’s decision in Lata Singh v. the State of UP (2006) applied to them and that the Court should provide them with protection.
The Supreme Court’s views on “live-in” relationships, the court stated, “cannot be considered to promote such relationships.” The court titled its remark in favour of the institution of marriage by citing other instances that addressed Live-In partnerships in connection to local regulations.
The Supreme Court’s observations, however, cannot be viewed as encouraging such connections, the Court ruled. Marriage has historically been favoured by the law. To protect and promote the institution of marriage, numerous rights and advantages are reserved for married people. The Supreme Court does not intend to disrupt the structure of Indian family life; it is merely admitting a societal reality.
The Supreme Court has said numerous times that section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not intended to provide maintenance to the “other woman” — a situation in which a man, who has a living, legally wedded wife, either marries a second time or begins living with a concubine.
The Court further highlighted that the supreme court declined to extend the definition of “wife” as it appears in section 125 of the CrPC to live-in partners who are requesting support. The court’s decision made clear how crucial it is to educate young people about the emotional, sociological, and legal difficulties that living together might present.
The petitioners have simply argued that they have the right to live with whomever they chose because they are of legal age in this particular case, the court said. But the mother of one of the petitioners had voiced her displeasure with this arrangement. The Court stated that writ jurisdiction is not established in such private party disputes.
According to the court, “Writ jurisdiction is not meant to decide such a type of dispute between two private parties because it is an unusual jurisdiction. Unless harassment is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we think it is a social issue that may be resolved on a social level rather than through the intrusion of the Writ Court under the pretext of a breach of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court also ruled that a live-in couple has the right to take certain actions if they are having real problems with their parents or other family members who are interfering with their live-in relationship to the point where their lives are in danger. These actions include submitting a First Information Report (FIR) to the police in accordance with Sections 154 (1) or 154 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), applying to the relevant court in accordance with Sections 156 (3) of the CrPC, or starting a complaint case in accordance with Section 200 of the CrPC.
When rejecting the interfaith couple’s request for protection (from police harassment), the Honourable High Court made these points. They claimed that the woman’s mother had filed a FIR against them because she was upset about their Live-In arrangement.
