Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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