State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 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

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