<p>In an observation, the Allahabad High Court said it is not against live-in-relationship but denied protection to a couple recently as one of the partners was married.</p>.<p>A Division Bench of Justices Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Dinesh Pathak said this hearing a plea seeking protection for a couple, who was into a live-in-relationship but married during the pendency of the petition.</p>.<p>The High Court had earlier dismissed a plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner.</p>.<p>The court also imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on them, observing that the woman is already married and in live-in-relationship with another man, an act against the "mandate" of the Hindu Marriage Act.</p>.<p>While granting protection to the couple in the latest case, the court said, “We are not against live-in-relation.”</p>.<p>Earlier, we rejected a plea as the protection was sought during subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners, it said.</p>.<p>The court directed police to provide protection to the petitioners, saying they were in a live-in-relationship but subsequently married each other.</p>.<p>Hence, in view of the orders given by the apex court in the past, they are entitled to protection, the HC said.</p>.<p>The petitioners had approached the HC on an apprehension that they might face harassment from their families. </p>
<p>In an observation, the Allahabad High Court said it is not against live-in-relationship but denied protection to a couple recently as one of the partners was married.</p>.<p>A Division Bench of Justices Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Dinesh Pathak said this hearing a plea seeking protection for a couple, who was into a live-in-relationship but married during the pendency of the petition.</p>.<p>The High Court had earlier dismissed a plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner.</p>.<p>The court also imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on them, observing that the woman is already married and in live-in-relationship with another man, an act against the "mandate" of the Hindu Marriage Act.</p>.<p>While granting protection to the couple in the latest case, the court said, “We are not against live-in-relation.”</p>.<p>Earlier, we rejected a plea as the protection was sought during subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners, it said.</p>.<p>The court directed police to provide protection to the petitioners, saying they were in a live-in-relationship but subsequently married each other.</p>.<p>Hence, in view of the orders given by the apex court in the past, they are entitled to protection, the HC said.</p>.<p>The petitioners had approached the HC on an apprehension that they might face harassment from their families. </p>