The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking framing of norms for registration of every live-in relationship with the Centre and termed it a “hare-brained” idea.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked the counsel for petitioner, lawyer Mamta Rani, if she wanted to foster the security of these people or wanted them not to get into live-in relationships. The counsel replied that the petitioner wanted the relationship to be registered to enhance their social security.
Also read: Union minister blames live-in relationships for rising crime, says educated girls should not get into such relationships
“What does the Centre has to do with registration of live-in relationships? What kind of hare-brained idea is this? It is high time this court start imposing cost on petitioners who file these kinds of PILs. Dismissed,” the bench also comprising Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said.
The PIL was filed by Rani, seeking a direction to the Centre to frame rules for registration of live-in relationships as it cited increase in crimes like rape and murder allegedly committed by live-in partners.
The plea, which referred to the recent killing of Shraddha Walkar allegedly by her live-in partner Aaftab Amin Poonawala, also sought framing of rules and guidelines for registration of such relationships.
Also read: Delhi man kills live-in partner, chops body into 35 pieces, dumps them over 18 days
The PIL said registration of live-in relationships would lead to accurate information being available to both the live-in partners about each other and also to the government about each of them regarding their marital status, criminal history and other relevant details.
Besides the increase in crimes like rape and murder, the plea said there has been a “huge increase in false rape cases filed by women wherein they claim to be living in live-in relationships with the accused, and it is always difficult for the courts to find out from the evidence whether the fact of living in live-in relationships is proved by the backing of evidence”.
(With Agency inputs)