High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H 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