Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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