Unregistered Gift Deed Cannot Create Title; Injunction Suit Not Maintainable Without Seeking Declaration If Ownership Is Disputed: Delhi High Court PF Default: General Managers Of Co-op Units Not 'Employers' If Ultimate Control Vests With Federation MD, Kerala High Court Quashes Case BCCI Is Not A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act; Mere Discharge Of Public Functions Not Enough For Inclusion: CIC Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act Is An 'Interlocutory Order', Appeal Under Section 14-A Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court Electronic Evidence | Nodal Officers Must Be Examined To Prove CDRs; Gait Analysis Inadmissible If Source CCTV Is Corrupted: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Reject Direct Evidence Of Conspiracy On Subjective Notion That It Must Be Hatched In Secrecy: Supreme Court Restores Conviction In Dr. Subbiah Murder Case Waitlisted Candidates Cannot Demand Change Of Posting At Their Whim; Old Select Lists Lapse After Repeal Of Act: Supreme Court NGOs, Individuals Feeding Stray Dogs In Institutional Campuses To Face Tortious Liability For Dog Bites: Supreme Court Stray Dogs Have No Absolute Right To Inhabit Schools, Hospitals Or Restricted Institutional Areas: Supreme Court Bail Jurisdiction Limited To Deciding Release Or Incarceration; High Court Cannot Issue General Directions On Police Accountability: Supreme Court Forest Department Cannot Claim Private Land Without Original Records Or Gazette Notification; Boundaries Prevail Over Area: Sikkim High Court Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators To Vanishing Of Evidence; Trial Court Must Draw Adverse Inference If Crucial Electronic Records Are Not Produced: Rajasthan High Court Land Acquisition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Compensation Enhancement By Applying Doctrine Of De-Escalation To Government Policy Rates 2-Day Delay In Lodging FIR Immaterial Once Charge Sheet Is Filed In Motor Accident Cases: Orissa High Court Matrimonial Settlement Enforceable Under Contempt Jurisdiction: Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Wife To Abide By Agreement After Receiving ₹1.5 Crore Prosecution Bound By Statements Of Its Own Witnesses; Absence Of Accused’s Signature On Seizure Memo Justifies Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh HC

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