Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a petition from a live-in couple seeking police protection, commenting that such relationships represent a ‘modern lifestyle’ adopted by a section of Indian society under the influence of Western culture, which contrasts with Indian traditions, and that couples who run away from their parental homes bring disrepute to their families and violate their parents’ right to live with dignity.
The two petitioners approached the high court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking police protection from harassment by private respondents identified as their family members and permission to live together.
Before the court, they claimed they were both adults in a consensual relationship and intended to marry.
The couple also sent a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, on 1 June. According to their petition, their family members were pressuring the woman to leave the man, and threatened to implicate the latter in a false criminal case.
The petition however mentioned that the man had not yet attained marriageable age, and would marry his partner only after doing so.
The court drew on the Supreme Court’s ruling in D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, which requires that for a live-in relationship to carry legal legitimacy, both partners must present themselves to society as akin to spouses, be of legal age to marry, and be otherwise eligible for marriage, including being unmarried.
While the petitioners leaned on Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity and personal liberty, the court turned the provision around, citing the same provision, which also protects the right of parents to live with dignity and honour. According to the court, by leaving their parental homes and choosing to cohabit, the petitioners infringed upon that right.
Justice Moudgil further noted that several other benches of the high court had previously declined similar requests for protection from live-in couples, holding that granting such relief could disturb the social fabric.
Merely cohabiting for a few days and making bald claims, the court said, does not establish a live-in relationship in the eyes of the law.
Granting police protection on such a basis, it added, would amount to the court indirectly endorsing what it called an illicit relationship, something impermissible even under Article 21, since the freedom it guarantees must operate within the bounds of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed. Advocate Komal Sidhu appeared for the petitioners.
(Edited by Harini TS)
Also Read: Indian courts are clueless about live-in relationships. They’re bumbling along case by case