Delhi HC: Laws Bar Parole to Prisoners for Conjugal Relationships

Delhi High Court has ruled that Indian law and prison rules do not allow parole for conjugal relationships, especially with live-in partners. A convict cannot claim a fundamental right to have a child with a live-in partner when their legal spouse and children exist. Parole is only granted to maintain family life and deal with familial matters, which does not include live-in partners. Granting parole for conjugal relationships with live-in partners would set a harmful precedent and open a floodgate of such petitions. The court emphasizes that it respects individual choices but cannot mix law with personal morality or conduct.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said the Indian law and prison rules do not permit parole to a prisoner on the ground of maintaining conjugal relationships, that too with a live-in partner.

The court said a person cannot claim to have a fundamental right to a child from his or her live-in partner, who is a convict, whose spouse is alive and they already have kids, within the parameters of law and prison rules.

''It would be also pertinent to note that the law, as it stands enacted today, does not permit grant of parole on the ground of maintaining 'conjugal relationship' even with one's legally wedded wife, let alone a live-in partner,'' Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The high court made the observations while refusing to release on parole a man, who is serving life imprisonment in jail, to consummate his ''marriage'' with his live-in partner and for maintaining social ties.

The man had earlier not disclosed that the woman was his live-in partner and not his legally wedded wife or that he was already married to someone else.

In the plea, the woman was mentioned as his wife and the man had also not revealed that he had not legally separated from his first wife with whom he had three children.

''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,'' the court said.

It said the convict is not entitled to the grant of parole on grounds of procreation or maintaining conjugal relationships with his second wife or live-in partner, when he already has a legally-wedded wife and three children born out of that wedlock.

The court said the convict's live-in partner, who lacks legal recognition as a ''wife'' or a ''spouse'', does not fall within the scope of the definition of 'family' under the Delhi Prison Rules.

According to the Delhi Prison Rules, a prisoner can be granted parole or furlough to enable him to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with familial and social matters. The definition of a family of a prisoner means grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, spouse, children and grandchildren.

The court said though the Delhi Prisons Rules recognises the illness of a family member as a ground for considering application for parole, such 'family member' will not include the petitioner's live-in partner, who, according to the interim application, is ill and requires treatment.

The court said 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, will set a harmful precedent.

It said if parole is granted on such grounds, it will open a flood gate of such petitions where many convicts may seek parole on the ground that they have a live-in partner apart from their legally-wedded partner or in case of an unmarried convict, a live-in partner who may want to have a child with the convict.

The high court also made it clear that it is neither authorised nor it wishes to comment on any person's personal life or choices and the relationships that he as an adult maintains with his wife or adult partner.

''This court does not mix or confuse law with general or individual morality or moral beliefs or conduct of two individuals which in the opinion of this court are the individual choices of two adults,'' it said.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)