Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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