Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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