Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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