Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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