Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

No Citizen Can Be Permitted To Take Law In His Own Hands In A Country Governed By Rule Of Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Protection For Minor Live-In-Relationship Couples

05 September 2024 6:21 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling reinforcing the right to protection of life and liberty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed the police to assess and respond to threats faced by a couple in a live-in relationship. Justice Harkesh Manuja, presiding over the case, emphasized that the personal choice of the couple must be protected under the law regardless of societal norms.

The petitioners, currently in a live-in relationship, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking protection against ongoing threats from private individuals. The case primarily dealt with the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty in the context of a non-traditional relationship arrangement.

Petitioner No. 1 is of legal age while Petitioner No. 2 is a minor, aged 17 years and 9 months, involved consensually in the relationship. They have faced persistent threats from certain private individuals, compelling them to seek judicial intervention for their safety. Their previous representations to the police did not yield any action, leading them to file the writ petition.

Nature of the Relationship: The court recognized the relationship as consensual, emphasizing that "the personal choice of two individuals must be respected" irrespective of their unmarried status.

Precedent and Protection: Justice Manuja referred to similar cases, notably 'Shilpa and another Vs. State of Punjab' and 'Pardeep Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana', to underline the judiciary's stance on protecting individuals in live-in relationships akin to married couples from familial and societal threats.

Constitutional Guarantees: The judgment highlighted that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to make personal choices about their lives. The court stated, "The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situations and not from society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief."

Police Response Required: The direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, was to objectively assess the threat against the petitioners and take necessary action, without delving into the legitimacy or morality of the relationship.

Decision: The court disposed of the petition by ordering the police to act on the petitioners' complaint, ensuring their safety and upholding their constitutional rights to life and liberty.

Date of Decision: April 20, 2024

Jograj Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others

 

Latest Legal News