The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to expand the definition of "wife" as it is used in section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to include live-in partners or the "other woman" for maintenance claims, according to the Allahabad High Court, which denied interfaith live-in couple protection.
A court panel made up of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari noted that the live-in couple's petition made no mention of their plans to get married soon, how long they have been living together, or their current marital status. They also made no claim that their neighbors or society at large recognize their relationship as having the characteristics of marriage.
When discussing provisions in personal and other laws governing marriage and maintenance provisions to legally married wives, the High Court stated that legally married wives have been granted recognition for maintenance under applicable requirements to Hindu or Muslim wives.
The High Court noted that while Muslim women derive their right to maintenance from the Shariat and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce Act), there is no recognition of extramarital sex in Muslim law. Concubines or mistresses are not on the list of people to be maintained by the husband under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
The High Court emphasized that "Zina," which has been defined as any sexual activity other than between husband and wife, including both extramarital and premarital sex, is not permitted in Islam. "Zina" is sometimes translated as fornication in English.
According to the High Court, "In reality, all sexual, lustful, or affectionate behaviors before marriage—such as kissing, touching, looking, etc.—are "Haram" in Islam since they are seen as components of "Zina" that could result in true "Zina" itself.
The High Court said, "The punishment for such an act according to the Quran (chapter 24) is a hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit adultery together with the punishment given by the "Sunnah" for the married male and female, which is stoning to death.
The interfaith live-in couple pleaded with the High Court to intervene on their behalf because they were being harassed, they claimed, by police. The live-in couple, a Hindu woman and a Muslim guy claimed in court that the woman's mother had issues with their live-in arrangement and had complained to the police about it.
The live-in couple requested protection under the Supreme Court decision, but the High Court refused to grant them. The High Court stated that the top court's findings could not be interpreted as supporting live-in relationships and that the law has historically been biassed in favor of marriage.
The Supreme Court is merely admitting a social fact and has no intention of upending the foundation of Indian family life, the High Court argued. The law reserves numerous rights and privileges to married people in order to protect and foster the institution of marriage.
