Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras High Court

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