Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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