Courts Cannot Grant Protection To Live-In Relationships Involving Minors As It Indirectly Sanctions Unlawful Arrangements: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live-in arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established statutory framework designed to shield the young and impressionable from exploitation and moral peril." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that constitutional courts cannot extend police protection to live-in relationships where one or both partners are minors, emphasizing that doing so would amount to an implicit sanction of arrangements repugnant to statutory frameworks.

A bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the welfare of the minor remains the paramount consideration, overriding claims of personal liberty when statutory bars against contractual capacity and independent choices apply.

The petitioners, a 16-year-old female (petitioner No.1) and an adult male (petitioner No.2), approached the High Court seeking directions to the police and private respondents to protect their life and liberty. According to the petition, petitioner No.1 left her parental home on July 22, 2026, after facing physical abuse and threats from her family upon refusing an arranged marriage, choosing instead to join the company of petitioner No.2 with whom she intended to marry upon attaining majority.

The primary question before the court was whether a minor engaged in a live-in relationship with an adult can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek police protection against family members. The court was also called upon to determine the extent of its parens patriae jurisdiction when confronted with minors seeking judicial imprimatur for arrangements contrary to statutory mandates regarding the age of majority.

Minor Lacks Legal Capacity To Contract Or Choose

The court relied extensively on the Division Bench judgment in Yash Pal and Another v. State of Haryana and others, noting that minors are legally incompetent to contract under legislations such as the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Indian Majority Act. The bench underscored that statutory disabilities encumbering a minor preempt them from making choices regarding live-in relationships.

"A minor belonging to any religious denomination, thus is incompetent to contract. If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom," the court noted while reiterating the binding principles laid down by the Division Bench.

Court Must Act As Parens Patriae

The bench emphasized that granting protection in such matters would cause the judiciary to shirk its solemn constitutional duty as a parens patriae towards minors. The court highlighted that judicial intervention must be aimed at securing the welfare and well-being of the child rather than facilitating arrangements that expose young individuals to moral and physical peril.

"The said solemn duty cast upon Courts of law, naturally requires that the minor concerned, rather than being permitted to be a partner in a live-in relationship either with a minor or with an adult, thus his/her custody is required to be ensured to be retrieved to his/her parents," the bench observed.

Protection Cannot Sanctify Unlawful Relationships

Explaining the rationale against granting relief, the court observed that extending protectionary orders would indirectly countenance a state of affairs expressly deprecated by legislative intent. The bench noted that the law deliberately circumscribes the liberties of minors to shield them from undue influence and susceptibility, rendering judicial sanction legally impermissible.

"Any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor’s involvement in such a relationship would not only be antithetical to the legislative intent but would also undermine the very bulwark erected to preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence," the court firmly stated.

Application To The Factual Matrix

Noting that petitioner No.1 was born on August 11, 2009, and was aged approximately 16 years, 11 months, and 19 days at the time of instituting the proceedings, the court held her to be an indubitable minor. Consequently, the bench ruled that the reliefs sought by the petitioners could not be granted under writ jurisdiction.

Final Directions Issued By The Court

Dismissing the criminal writ petition, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Police, District Ludhiana, to take requisite steps in accordance with law. The Registry was further instructed to transmit a complete copy of the paper-book along with the order to the Commissioner of Police for appropriate action regarding the safety and welfare of the minor.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the constitutional writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized to provide a judicial shield for live-in relationships involving minors. By prioritizing statutory mandates and the doctrine of parens patriae, the court has reinforced that the protection of youthful innocence and adherence to the statutory age of majority override individual claims of autonomy in such contexts.

Date of Decision: 03 August 2026