New Delhi: The Madhya Pradesh high court has observed that while “certain rights have been conferred by the constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy and enforce them”, Indian Express reported.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar made the remarks while granting protection to a 19-year-old couple in a live-in relationship. He also expressed concern over their decision to live together against the wishes of their parents.
The teenage couple moved the court seeking protection, stating that they have a threat from the girl’s family. Hearing the petition, Justice Abhyankar said, “This court must record its concern on the choices the youngsters are making these days. Although there is much to ponder over this subject, it must be remembered that even though certain rights have been conferred by the constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy, and enforce them as well.”
Granting protection, the court instructed the station house officer of the local police station to share his mobile number with the couple, so that they can contact him in case of an emergency.
On the other hand, the court directed the counsel representing the couple to apprise them of concerns the court has regarding their relationship.
“India is not a country where the state provides any allowance to the unemployed and the uneducated ones. Thus, if you are not dependent on your parents, you have to earn your own and your partner’s livelihood and this would naturally obviate the possibility of going to school or college. And if you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only your chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected, but your acceptance in society is also reduced,” the court said.
It further said, “It is far more difficult for a girl, who can also become pregnant at an early age, leading to further complications in her life.”
Meanwhile, the state government opposed the petition noting that the boy is only 19 years old and not even of marriageable age. It further argued that granting protection to such a couple would not be in the larger interest of the society, as it would “promote promiscuousness”.
On the other hand, the counsel representing the couple referred to a Supreme Court judgment where it was said that an adult couple, even if they are not of marriageable age, have the right to live together. The court, therefore, allowed the petition.
