<p>Lucknow: In a contentious observation, the Allahabad High Court has termed live-in relationships as 'timepass' and 'temporary' as it declined to provide protection to an inter-faith couple, who had approached the court seeking police protection and quashing of the FIR lodged against the male partner charging him with kidnapping.</p><p>The bench, comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and M A H Idrisi, also said that such type of relationships were more of ''infatuation than to have stability and sincerity (sic)''. </p><p>''Unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name of their relationship or they are sincere towards each other, the Court shuns and avoids expressing any opinion in such a type of relationship (sic),'' the bench said.</p>.'A vote of conscience': Why CJI differed with colleagues in same-sex marriage verdict. <p>''No doubt that Hon'ble the Apex Court in a number of cases, has validated the live-in relationship but in the span of two months at the tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give a serious thought over their such type of temporary relationship (sic),'' it said.</p><p>''It is more of infatuation with the opposite sex without any sincerity. Life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows that such a relationship often results in time passing, and this being temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding giving any protection to the petitioner during this stage of investigation (sic),'' the court further stated. </p><p>The court added that it had its own ''reservations regarding such type of relationships and shall not be misconstrued that the Court is passing any remark to validate such type of relationship of the petitioners or protect them from any legal proceeding instituted in accordance with the law (sic),''. </p><p>The case pertained to a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, who had pleaded that they were adults and had chosen each other on their own volition. The inter-faith couple also contended that being adults, they had every right to decide their future. A case was lodged against the man by the state police, charging him with kidnapping, based on a complaint filed by a relative of the woman in Mathura.</p><p>The relative of the woman contended in the court the man was a ''road Romeo'' and had cases registered against him under the Gangster's Act and also that the woman had no 'future' with him.</p>
<p>Lucknow: In a contentious observation, the Allahabad High Court has termed live-in relationships as 'timepass' and 'temporary' as it declined to provide protection to an inter-faith couple, who had approached the court seeking police protection and quashing of the FIR lodged against the male partner charging him with kidnapping.</p><p>The bench, comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and M A H Idrisi, also said that such type of relationships were more of ''infatuation than to have stability and sincerity (sic)''. </p><p>''Unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name of their relationship or they are sincere towards each other, the Court shuns and avoids expressing any opinion in such a type of relationship (sic),'' the bench said.</p>.'A vote of conscience': Why CJI differed with colleagues in same-sex marriage verdict. <p>''No doubt that Hon'ble the Apex Court in a number of cases, has validated the live-in relationship but in the span of two months at the tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give a serious thought over their such type of temporary relationship (sic),'' it said.</p><p>''It is more of infatuation with the opposite sex without any sincerity. Life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows that such a relationship often results in time passing, and this being temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding giving any protection to the petitioner during this stage of investigation (sic),'' the court further stated. </p><p>The court added that it had its own ''reservations regarding such type of relationships and shall not be misconstrued that the Court is passing any remark to validate such type of relationship of the petitioners or protect them from any legal proceeding instituted in accordance with the law (sic),''. </p><p>The case pertained to a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, who had pleaded that they were adults and had chosen each other on their own volition. The inter-faith couple also contended that being adults, they had every right to decide their future. A case was lodged against the man by the state police, charging him with kidnapping, based on a complaint filed by a relative of the woman in Mathura.</p><p>The relative of the woman contended in the court the man was a ''road Romeo'' and had cases registered against him under the Gangster's Act and also that the woman had no 'future' with him.</p>