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 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 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

Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings

27 December 2024 4:00 PM

By: sayum


High Court underscores the paramountcy of life and liberty, instructs authorities to assess threat perception to the couple. the Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled in favor of protecting a couple in a live-in relationship, despite one partner’s pending divorce. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, reaffirms the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, directing the police to assess and address any threats to the couple’s safety.

The petitioners, Harpreet Kaur and another individual, approached the High Court seeking protection for their life and liberty. Harpreet Kaur, who is currently in a live-in relationship with the second petitioner, has a pending divorce case filed against her husband, Amritpal Singh. The couple feared for their safety due to threats from their families, who disapproved of their relationship.

Justice Bedi highlighted the constitutional right to life and liberty, stating, “The protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India as emanating out of Article 21.” The Court emphasized that every individual, especially adults, has the right to live with a person of their choice, subject to the law.

The Court reiterated that while societal acceptance of live-in relationships is increasing, the legality of such relationships should not impede the protection of individuals involved. “The petitioners are entitled to the protection of their life and liberty even if they are living in a ‘Live in Relationship’,” noted Justice Bedi, referencing past judgments where protection was granted to similar couples.

The judgment referred to several precedents where the High Court had granted protection to couples in live-in relationships, even in cases where one party was married. Notably, the Court cited the cases of Pardeep Singh vs. State of Haryana and Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, where protection was afforded despite the couples not being divorced from their previous spouses.

Justice Bedi emphasized the role of the judiciary in protecting individual rights: “No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.” He further added, “The right to life and liberty includes the right of an individual to full development of his/her potential in accordance with his/her choice and wish.”

This judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the protection of life and liberty. By affirming the right to live with a person of one’s choice, the Court has sent a strong message about the importance of safeguarding individual freedoms against societal and familial pressures. This decision is likely to have significant implications for future cases involving live-in relationships and the protection of personal rights.

Date of Decision: 07 May 2024

Latest Legal News