Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Live-in Relationships | Every Person,  Has the Right to Live His/Her Life With a Person of His/ Her Choice – Even Married to Someone Else– Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed the protection of life and liberty for individuals in live-in relationships, emphasizing that such individuals are entitled to live their lives as they choose, subject to legal constraints. This declaration came in the judgment dated April 10, 2024, involving petitioners Pooja Devi and another, who sought protection from threats due to their non-marital cohabitation.

The court deliberated on the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. The petitioners, involved in a live-in relationship while one of them was still legally married to another person, faced life threats from estranged family members.

Pooja Devi and her partner petitioned the court under Article 226 for directives to ensure their safety against threats from the spouse of one petitioner and others. The contention revolved around their right to choose their living arrangement without societal or familial interference, despite the absence of formal marital ties.

Legal Recognition and Societal Perspective: Citing precedents, the court recognized the increasing societal acceptance of live-in relationships, comparing the protections afforded to such couples to those married against family wishes.

Protection Under Law: The judgment referenced several cases where courts had previously intervened to protect individuals in non-traditional relationships from harm, underscoring the non-discriminatory nature of the right to life and liberty.

Focus on Immediate Threats Rather Than Legality of Relationship: Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted, “The courts are required to pass necessary directions for their protection,” indicating the court’s priority to safeguard life and personal liberty over adjudicating the moral legality of the relationship.

The court ordered the police to evaluate and address the threat perception concerning the petitioners without commenting on the legality of their relationship. The directive aimed to ensure that the petitioners’ life and liberty are not compromised.

 Date of decision: April 10, 2024.

Pooja Devi and another vs. State of Haryana and others,

 

Latest Legal News