Allahabad High Court Affirms Legality of Live-in Relationships, Mandates State Protection

सही उत्तर: B

Statement 1 is correct. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides for protection to women in 'domestic relationships' which includes relationships 'in the nature of marriage', thereby extending legal recognition to live-in partners. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Supreme Court of India, through various judgments (e.g., S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma), has recognized the legality and validity of live-in relationships, affirming that they are not illegal or immoral. Statement 3 is correct. The judiciary has largely grounded the right to choose a partner and live together, even without marriage, in the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

सही उत्तर: A

Statement I is correct. High Court judgments are binding precedents for all subordinate courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction. Statement II is incorrect. While maintenance can be sought by a woman in a live-in relationship under the PWDVA, 2005, or Section 125 CrPC (if the relationship meets certain criteria 'in the nature of marriage'), the term 'palimony' is not explicitly codified as a separate legal provision in Indian family law. It's a term often used in Western legal systems. Statement III is incorrect. While children born out of live-in relationships have been granted legitimacy and inheritance rights, the Supreme Court has generally not equated live-in partners with married spouses for the purpose of direct inheritance rights between partners themselves, especially in the absence of a will. The legal position on inheritance for partners in live-in relationships remains complex and largely depends on specific facts and existing personal laws, which primarily recognize marital relationships for direct inheritance.

सही उत्तर: B

Option B is the most accurate. The ruling emphasizes that the State has a duty to protect every citizen, and a couple's unmarried status cannot deprive them of their fundamental rights (primarily Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This reinforces the existing constitutional obligation of the State. Option A is incorrect; it doesn't create a new fundamental right but interprets existing ones. Option C is incorrect; while UCC is a related debate, the ruling itself does not mandate specific legislation for live-in couples or a UCC. Option D is incorrect; the ruling explicitly states that while live-in relationships may not be universally accepted, their legal validity and fundamental rights must be upheld, implying legal validity takes precedence over social acceptance in matters of rights.