Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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