Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court 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 Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Live -In – Relationship: Protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the constitutional right to life and liberty for individuals in live-in relationships, setting a significant precedent in the realm of personal law and individual rights.

The case, titled Kiran Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others, was presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi. The court meticulously addressed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking protection for the life and liberty of the petitioners, who are in a live-in relationship and facing threats from relatives.

Constitutional Sanctity to Personal Choices: The court emphasized, “Every person, moreso, a major, has the right to live his/her life with a person of his/her choice subject to the law as applicable.” This assertion highlights the court’s recognition of personal autonomy in intimate relationships.

Legal Precedence on Live-in Relationships: Citing previous judgments, the court acknowledged the growing acceptance and legal validation of live-in relationships in India. Justice Bedi noted, “The concept of live-in-relationships has crept into our society from western nations...this shows that social acceptance for live-in-relationships is on the increase.”

Protection of Life and Liberty: The judgment focused on the importance of safeguarding the life and liberty of individuals, stating, “The protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India.”

Non-Intrusion into Legality of Relationship: The court deliberately refrained from commenting on the legality of the relationship between the petitioners, underscoring that the immediate concern was their protection.

The court directed the police to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. This direction reflects a balanced approach, safeguarding the petitioners’ rights while not precluding legal action against them for any unlawful activities.

Date of Decision: 29.11.2023

Kiran Kaur and another VS State of Punjab and others 

Latest Legal News