SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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 sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court
  • by sayum
    01 October 2026 8:20 AM
Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court