MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator 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

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