Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors

23 September 2024 6:32 PM

By: Deepak Kumar

Article 21 Must Protect Life and Liberty, Irrespective of Marital or Social Norms. On September 9, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a landmark ruling in CRWP No. 4660 of 2021, CRWP No. 149 of 2024, and LPA No. 968 of 2021. The case dealt with the right to protection for individuals in live-in relationships, even when one partner is married. The court reaffirmed that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, must prevail over societal norms, emphasizing individual dignity and autonomy in relationships.

Background of the Case: The case originated from multiple writ petitions where the petitioners, despite being married to third parties, sought protection for their life and liberty while living in a live-in relationship. Both Yash Pal and another (petitioners in CRWP No. 4660/2021) and Komal and another (petitioners in CRWP No. 149/2024) claimed threats from their families and society due to their relationships. Earlier, in LPA No. 968 of 2021, protection had been denied by the High Court, citing concerns about the social fabric being disrupted by such relationships.

Legal Issues at Hand and Court Observations: The legal question centered on whether courts are bound to provide protection to individuals in live-in relationships, even if one partner is married, and whether societal concerns should override the constitutional guarantee under Article 21.

Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21): The petitioners contended that irrespective of their marital status, they are entitled to protection of their life and liberty under Article 21. The respondents argued that granting protection in such cases would disrupt the social fabric, citing moral and societal objections.

Previous Case Law: The court considered precedents, including Joseph Shine v. Union of India, which decriminalized adultery and emphasized the autonomy and privacy of individuals in intimate relationships.

Societal Morality vs. Constitutional Rights: The court ruled that societal morality cannot outweigh the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to live with dignity, as part of Article 21, encompasses the right to choose one’s relationships, including live-in arrangements, even if one partner is married.

Protection Must Be Granted If Genuine Threat Exists: The court held that individuals in live-in relationships are entitled to protection if there is a genuine threat to their life and liberty, irrespective of their marital status.

Mechanism for Protection: The court outlined a mechanism where couples seeking protection should first approach District Legal Services Authorities or the State Human Rights Commission for counseling and mediation before filing writ petitions, thereby easing the burden on courts and police.

Minors in Live-In Relationships: The court ruled that minors cannot enter live-in relationships due to legal incapacities under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Minors involved in such relationships would be placed in the custody of guardians or sent to care homes if necessary.

Previous Rulings Overturned: The court overturned its earlier decision in LPA No. 968 of 2021, which had denied protection to married individuals in live-in relationships. It ruled that Article 21 must prevail over concerns about the social fabric, emphasizing that protection must be provided if genuine threats to life and liberty exist.

The High Court allowed CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024, granting protection to the petitioners, and dismissed LPA No. 968 of 2021, affirming the primacy of constitutional rights over societal norms.

Date of Decision: September 9, 2024

Yash Pal and another v. State of Haryana and others

Latest Legal News

  • by Admin
    17 December 2025 4:09 PM
Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife
  • by Admin
    17 December 2025 4:07 PM
"Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct
  • by Admin
    17 December 2025 4:06 PM
No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen
  • by Admin
    17 December 2025 4:04 PM
Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court
  • by Admin
    17 December 2025 4:03 PM
Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by Admin
    17 December 2025 4:01 PM
Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case