The Punjab and Haryana High Court has come down hard on a live-in couple who are still married to their estranged spouses and seeking police protection. The HC dismissed their plea observing that were living a lustful and adulterous life with each other without obtaining divorce.

The single-judge bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Writ Petition filed by Kavita and another. The petition had been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking issuance of directions to officials respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents as the petitioners are in live-in-relationship against the wishes of the private respondents.

The petitioner, Kavita, is aged about 35 years and is the legally wedded wife of Sunil Dutt i.e., respondent 4, whereas Angrez Singh, being petitioner 2, is 32 years old and is legally wedded husband of Lakhwinder Kaur being respondent 6 in the present petition. The petition said they are in love with each other for the past few years and have developed some understanding and liking towards each other. For the last one month, they are in a live-in-relationship and for this reason, the private respondents are annoyed with them.

It is further said that Kavita has filed a divorce petition but the divorce has not been granted so far. The bench observed, “A perusal of the petition would show that neither any date is given in the petition seeking divorce nor any date is given in the application seeking grant of interim maintenance. There is no case number mentioned on the said divorce petition.”

A perusal of the petition would further show that, it is stated that the husband of petitioner No. 1 has deserted her and neglected by causing mental and physical cruelty, Justice Sangwan said.

The averments made in para 9 and 3 of the petition are in sharp contrast to each other as in divorce petition, it is stated that husband of petitioner No. 1 has deserted and neglected her, whereas in para 3 of the petition, it is stated that both the petitioners are loving each other for the last many years.

The Court noted further, “In the application dated September 27, 2012, addressed to Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, it is again stated that both the petitioners are loving each other for the last so many years and are in a live-in-relationship for the last one month and they are having apprehensions at the hands of “aforementioned persons”, however, a perusal of this representation reveals that no such persons are referred to in the entire representation and nothing is stated as to from whom, the petitioners are apprehending threat. On the face of it, both the petitioners, without seeking divorce from their respective spouses, i.e. respondent No. 4 and 6, respectively, are living a lustful and adulterous life with each other and have relied upon a totally vague document i.e. representation, wherein it is nowhere stated that from whom, they are apprehending threat to their life and liberty.”

The bench remarked, “It is worth noticing here that in the absence of any allegation by not naming anyone in the representation, it cannot be presumed that both the petitioners have any apprehension from their own spouses and this petition has been filed just to obtain a seal of this Court on their so called live-in relationship.”

“The representation appears to be a fake document as no receipt or diary number of the office of Superintendent of Police, Kaithal is given or attached,” said the Court while dismissing the petition.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday granted protection to a 21-year-old woman and a 19-year-old man after observing that the couple was entitled to live together in a live-in relationship since they had turned major.

A single-judge bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi passed this order while hearing a Criminal Writ Petition filed by Pushpa Devi and Another. The petitioners have filed the Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondents to protect their life and liberty from danger at the hands of respondents.

The Petitioners have pleaded that the petitioners, aged about 21 and 19 years respectively, fell in love and are living together. Petitioner 2 (man) has not yet attained the age of marriage and the petitioners will solemnize marriage as and when he attains it. The respondents want to get the marriage of Petitioner 1 forcibly solemnized with some other man against her choice and also threaten that both the petitioners would be killed for the sake of family prestige.

The petitioners made representation dated July 2, 2021 to respondents for protection of their life and liberty but no action has been taken on the same.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, who are in a live-in-relationship, made representation dated July 02, 2021 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Mohali seeking necessary protection but no action has been taken so far in the matter. Therefore, the appropriate direction may be given for the protection of the life and liberty of the Petitioners.

Also Read: Supreme Court dismisses anticipatory bail plea of man accused of heinous crime

In the case, the petitioners being major are entitled to live together in a live-in relationship and are also entitled to the protection of their life and liberty against any harm from respondents, the Court said.

“In view of the above discussion, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, District Mohali to look into the grievances of the Petitioners as set out in the Petition and also expressed in the representation dated July 02, 2021, and take appropriate action for the protection of their life and liberty as may be warranted by the circumstances”, the Court ordered.

The Court directed to send a copy of the order along with a copy of the petition and above-said representation to respondent No.2- Senior Superintendent of Police, District Mohali for requisite compliance.

ILNS: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday ruled that an individual has the right to formalise a relationship with his or her partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship.

This order was passed by Justice Sudhir Mittal, while hearing a petition filed, in the main, by Pardeep Singh. Earlier, Justice Anil Kshetarpal of the same court had refused to grant protection to a live-in couple who allegedly faced threats from the girl’s family since their elopement.

The judge had noted that “if such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed.”  Also, in another case, Justice H S Madaan had refused intervention under similar circumstances.

The petition that landed before the court of Justice Mittal said that the petitioners are in a live-in-relationship, they are both major and have decided to enter into such a relationship as they are sure of their feelings for each other. However, their families are against the relationship and are threatening to cause physical harm, it was alleged. A representation of May 9 had also been submitted by the petitioners, but no action was taken by the state, so the couple had no option but to file the petition.

The state counsel submitted that live-in-relationships are not legal and are frowned upon by society. Thus, no protection can be granted to the petitioners.

The court reminded the state counsel that the Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land. “The right to life and liberty is enshrined therein and is treated as a basic feature,” the court said. “The said right includes the right of an individual to full development of his/her potential in accordance with his/her choice and wish and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to choose a partner of his/her choice. The individual also has the right to formalise the relationship with the partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship. The concept of live-in relationships has crept into our society from western nations and initially, found acceptance in the metropolitan cities, probably because, individuals felt that formalisation of a relationship through marriage was not necessary for complete fulfilment. Education played a great role in development of this concept. Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and villages also as is evident from the petition.

“This shows that social acceptance for live -in relationships is on the increase. In law, such a relationship is not prohibited nor does it amount to commission of any offence and thus, in my considered view such persons are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country. The law postulates that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and must be protected irrespective of individual views,” the Court observed.

The Court held that: “The Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation exits where the couple has entered into a live-in relationship.”

The Court stated that the “only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situations and not from the society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.

“The Petition is accordingly, disposed of with direction to respondents to consider the representation dated May 9, 2021 and to provide appropriate protection, if found necessary. It shall be ensured that no harm comes either to the lives or liberty of the Petitioners”, the Court ordered.

Earlier, in the same court, Justice Kshetarpal had ordered (in a similar petition): “Petitioner no.1 (Girl) is barely 18 years old whereas petitioner no.2 (Boy) is 21 years old. They claim to be residing together in a live-in relationship and claim protection of their life and liberty from the relatives of petitioner no.1 (Girl).” The judge had dismissed the petition, saying that a live-in-relationship is morally and socially unacceptable.

Read Also: Delhi court reserves order on businessman Navneet Kalra’s custody plea

In another case petitioners Gulza Kumari and Gurwinder Singh had filed a petition stating that presently they are residing together, though they intend to get married shortly. At that Justice H S Madaan had observed in his May 11 order: “As a matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking seal of approval on their live-in-relationship, which is morally and socially not acceptable and no protection order in the petition can be passed. The petition stands dismissed accordingly