Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Live In Relation: Opposed By Husband : Right to life and liberty includes the right to choose partner of choice: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that every person, especially a major, has the right to live their life with a person of their choice. The Court made this observation while disposing of a criminal writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

The petitioners, Rina Rani and another, were in a live-in relationship and wanted to marry each other despite opposition from the respondent's side. The first petitioner was previously married to respondent no. 4, who allegedly maltreated and physically assaulted her. The petitioners sought protection from the court.

The court noted that the protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India, as emanating out of Article 21. Every person has the right to live their life with a person of their choice. The court also observed that the concept of live-in relationships has crept into our society from western nations, and social acceptance of such relationships is on the rise.

The court relied on various judgments in similar cases, including Pardeep Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others, CRWP-4521-2021, which held that individuals in a live-in relationship are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country. The court directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation and assess the threat perception to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 was further directed to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

The court clarified that its order shall not debar the state or any person aggrieved from proceeding against the petitioners if any cause of action arises or if they are found involved in any case.

This judgment is significant as it upholds the right to choose a partner and live with them, regardless of societal norms or opposition from family members. It reiterates that the protection of life and liberty is of paramount importance and must be upheld by the courts.

Rina Rani & Anr. vs State of Haryana & Ors. 

Latest Legal News