CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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