Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by a child alleging threats from the former in-laws of her mother to her parents, who are in a live-in relationship, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ. viewed that, under the constitutional framework, both parents, as adults, were entitled to live together, even without formal marriage. Hence, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, to ensure that the First Information Report (‘FIR’) is registered, should the child’s parents approach the station. The Court also instructed the Superintendent of Police to assess whether any security measures were necessary for the protection of the child and her parents, in accordance with the law.
The Court noted that the father and mother of the child were from different religions and had been living together since 2018. At the time of the proceedings, the child was one year and four months old. The parents expressed concerns regarding certain threats from the private respondents, who were the former in-laws of the biological mother. Following the death of her former husband, the biological mother had started living with the biological father.
The Court viewed that, under the constitutional framework, both parents, as adults, were entitled to live together, even without formal marriage.1
The couple also informed the Court that the police authorities were unwilling to register a FIR against the private respondents. They further stated that every time they approached the police station to lodge the FIR, they were subjected to humiliation and denied assistance.
In light of the circumstances, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, to ensure that the FIR is registered at the Chandausi Police Station, District Sambhal, should the parents of the child approach the station.
Additionally, the Superintendent of Police was instructed to assess whether any security measures were necessary for the protection of the child and the parents, in accordance with the law. The authorities were further directed to act in accordance with the judgments referenced in the case.
[X v. State of U.P, Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.3 of 2025, decided on 08-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Santosh Prajapati,Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C
1. Gyan Devi v. Superintendent, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Das v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396.
