Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

No Seal of Court on Adulterous Conduct – High Court Dismisses Plea for Protection in Live-in Relationship

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, dismissed a petition seeking protection for a couple in a live-in relationship. The court notably stated that it will not “obliquely obtain the seal of this Court on their conduct,” highlighting the legal complexities surrounding live-in relationships and adultery.

The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought protection of life and liberty against threats from family members. The petitioners, Reena Devi and another, claimed they were living together since September 2023 and faced threats from the family of petitioner No.1. However, the court found the allegations to be unsubstantiated by convincing evidence.

Justice Tiwari critically observed that petitioner No.2, who is still legally married and in the midst of a divorce case, is living a “lustful and adulterous life” with petitioner No.1. This relationship potentially falls under the ambit of Sections 494/495 of the IPC, governing adultery.

The judgment emphasized the lack of convincing material supporting the petitioners’ allegations of threats. The court remarked, “Such bald and vague allegations cannot be readily and naively accepted,” indicating a stringent approach towards claims lacking substantial evidence.

The case underscores the legal scrutiny live-in relationships undergo, especially involving individuals still legally married. The court’s decision to dismiss the petition reflects its stance on not endorsing relationships that might contravene existing laws on adultery.

Mr. Virender Singh, advocate for the petitioners, represented their case but was unable to sway the court’s opinion, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

This judgment is expected to have significant implications for similar cases involving live-in relationships and the legal boundaries of personal liberty and societal norms.

Date of Decision:November 06, 2023

REENA DEVI AND ANR   VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS     

Latest Legal News