Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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