TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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