CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Every Person Has The Right To Live His / Her Life With A Person of His / Her Choice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Life and Liberty in Live-In Relationships

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant judgment, has reasserted the right to life and liberty of individuals in live-in relationships. The bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl delivered a landmark judgment emphasizing that every person, especially adults, has the fundamental right to choose their partner and lifestyle, as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Point: The Court categorically stated that the protection of life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is a basic feature that every citizen is entitled to, regardless of their marital status or age of majority.

Facts and Issues: In CRWP-2822-2024, the petitioners, Ramandeep and another, sought protection of their life and liberty while being in a non-marital live-in relationship. Notably, one of the petitioners was not of marriageable age as per law. They apprehended harm to their life and liberty and hence approached the Court.

Protection in Live-in Relationships: The Court, referring to several precedents including Jashanpreet Kaur & Others vs State of Punjab, highlighted the importance of protecting fundamental rights irrespective of the nature of the relationship. “Every person, more so, a major, has the right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice,” the Court observed.

Assessment of Threat Perception: Directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, to assess the threat to the petitioners, the Court mandated appropriate action in accordance with the law. This directive is a step to ensure the safety of individuals choosing to live outside traditional marital norms.

Judicial Approach to Non-Conventional Relationships: The judgment marked a progressive shift in the judiciary's approach towards non-conventional relationships. The Court recognized the evolving societal norms and asserted that legal protection is not diminished by the absence of a marital bond.

Decision: Conclusively, the Court granted protection to the petitioners, directing the police to address their safety concerns. This decision reaffirms the constitutional sanctity of life and liberty, extending its ambit to include relationships that lie outside the traditional framework of marriage.

Date of Decision: 28.03.2024

Ramandeep and another vs State of Punjab and others

 

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:15 AM
Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:14 AM
Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:13 AM
Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:12 AM
Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:11 AM
Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 6:35 AM
Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones