Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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     

Similar News