Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act

23 February 2025 10:11 AM

By: sayum


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has mandated the protection of a minor involved in a live-in relationship, highlighting the application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to ensure that the minor is produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and emphasized the need for appropriate measures to protect the minor's life and liberty.

The petition was filed by Parveen Kumar, aged 24, and his partner, a 17-year-old minor, seeking protection from the private respondents who are family members opposed to their relationship. The couple, asserting their right to life and liberty, moved the High Court after facing threats due to their live-in relationship. The petitioners had previously submitted a representation to the authorities but claimed no action had been taken.

The court, presided over by Justice Kirti Singh, noted the significance of ensuring the safety of minors involved in such sensitive situations. The judgment referred to the earlier case of P. Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana, where similar directions were issued to protect minors under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The court reiterated that the minor in the current case also qualifies as a "child in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14) of the Act.

The High Court ordered the SSP of the concerned district to depute a Child Welfare Police Officer to present the minor before the CWC within a week. The court directed the CWC to conduct an inquiry as stipulated under Section 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act and take appropriate measures for the minor's care and protection, including decisions regarding the minor’s living arrangements.

The court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act is designed to protect minors and ensure their well-being in all circumstances. By invoking the Act, the court ensured that the minor would receive the necessary care, protection, and oversight from the appropriate authorities, reinforcing the legal framework designed to safeguard children.

The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting minors, especially in complex situations like live-in relationships. By applying the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court has set a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that minors receive the necessary protection and care. The directives issued in this case are expected to have significant implications for future cases involving minors in live-in relationships, reinforcing the legal protections available to them.

Date of Decision: 30.07.2024

 

Latest Legal News