MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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