Indian law does not permit parole to convicts solely for maintaining relationships with live-in partners, the Delhi high court has said. A live-in partner cannot claim the fundamental right to expand their family when the convict is legally married and has children from that marriage, it added.
“The law in India as well as the Delhi Prison Rules do not permit grant of parole on the ground of maintaining conjugal relationships, that too with live-in partners. In other words, a live-in-partner, when the legally wedded wife of the convict is already alive and they already have three children, cannot claim to have a fundamental right to have a child from her live-in-partner who is a convict, within the parameters of law and prison rules,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said in a 27-page judgment on Wednesday.
The court added that allowing parole for parenthood or conjugal relations with a live-in partner, while the convict remains married with children, would establish a precedent contrary to legal principles.
“Granting parole on the ground to have a child or to maintain conjugal relationships with a live-in partner, where the convict already has a legally wedded wife and children born out of that wedlock, would set a harmful precedent,” said Justice Sharma.
Regarding the specifics of the case, the court said that the 2018 Delhi Prison Rules do not cover “live-in partners” within the definition of family members eligible for parole.
“As far as the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 are concerned, the word ‘spouse’, as mentioned in Rule 1201, would imply only a legally wedded husband or a wife, being its strict and precise interpretation, and it would exclude any live-in partner from its ambit since a live-in partner cannot fall under the definition of ‘spouse’. Thus, the live-in partner of the petitioner herein, who lacks legal recognition as a ‘wife’ or a ‘spouse’ cannot be held to fall within the scope of the definition of ‘family’ under Delhi Prison Rules,” the court noted.
The judgment came on a plea of a convict who sought parole on the grounds of consummating his marriage with his wife. The convict, represented by advocate Ansh Makkar, said that his client’s court custody prevented them from consummating their marriage even though they had been married for three years.
The Delhi Police, represented by additional standing counsel Anmol Sinha, contested the claim arguing that the petitioner’s purported spouse was, in fact, a live-in partner and not his legally wedded wife.
The court then dismissed the plea, highlighting the lack of full disclosure regarding his marital status and children. It noted that the convict failed to reveal his previous marriage and offspring, undermining the credibility of his parole request.
Credit: Source link