MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator 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

Life and Liberty of Every Individual Is Precious and Must Be Protected Irrespective of Individual Views: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Rights of Individuals in Live-In Relationships

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has underscored the fundamental rights of individuals in live-in relationships, highlighting the constitutional mandate to protect life and liberty under any circumstances.

Legal Point: The ruling focused on the crucial issue of safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals in non-marital relationships, emphasizing the constitutional protections afforded under Article 21.

Facts and Issues: Petitioners Diljot Kaur and another individual approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking protection due to perceived societal threats arising from their live-in relationship. The case posed important questions regarding societal norms and the extent of legal protections available to individuals in such relationships, particularly when the partners have previous marital commitments.

Legal Protection for Live-In Relationships: Referencing multiple precedents, the Court pointed out that personal choices in relationships must be protected by law. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted, "The concept of live-in relationships has crept into our society from western nations...and is now gaining acceptance even in smaller towns and villages."

Assessment of Threat Perception: The Court directed authorities to evaluate the threats against the petitioners and provide necessary protection, firmly stating that taking the law into one's own hands is unacceptable.

Societal Evolution and Legal Stance: The judgment also discussed the evolving societal attitudes toward non-traditional relationships and the legal system's role in adapting to these changes while protecting individual rights.

Protection Despite Legal and Social Challenges: The decision emphasized that the protection of life and liberty remains a priority, regardless of the relationship's legal status or social acceptance.

Decision: The petition was resolved with directives to the state to assess the threat level to the petitioners and act accordingly to ensure their safety, reinforcing the constitutional responsibility to protect every individual's rights.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024

Diljot Kaur & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

Latest Legal News