Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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