Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Right to Life and Liberty Paramount’ in Live-In Relationship Protection Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, emphasizing the primacy of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ruling, delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi on 7th May 2024, directs the authorities to assess the threat perception and take appropriate measures to protect the petitioners, regardless of the legal status of their relationship.

The petitioners, Harpreet Kaur and another individual, sought the court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing threats from their relatives due to their live-in relationship. Harpreet Kaur, previously married with three children, is awaiting the finalization of her divorce. Her partner, the second petitioner, is unmarried. They claimed that their safety was compromised by their relatives’ disapproval of their relationship, prompting them to seek legal protection.

Right to Life and Liberty: Justice Bedi highlighted the inviolable nature of the right to life and liberty, stating, “The protection under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and not contingent upon the legality of the relationship.” The judgment emphasized that every individual, irrespective of societal norms, is entitled to protection of their fundamental rights.

Legal Status of Relationship: The court asserted that the protection of life and liberty should not be dependent on the formalization of relationships. Justice Bedi cited prior judgments to support this view, noting, “The individual has the right to choose a partner of his/her choice and is entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country.”

The judgment referenced several landmark cases, including Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana (CRWP-4521-2021), where protection was extended to a live-in couple. “This increasing social acceptance of live-in relationships underscores the need for legal protection irrespective of traditional views,” Justice Bedi remarked.

Justice Bedi eloquently stated, “The law postulates that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and must be protected irrespective of individual views.” He further added, “No person can be permitted to take law in his hands in a country governed by the Rule of Law.”

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights, regardless of societal prejudices. By directing authorities to ensure the couple’s protection, the court reaffirms the paramount importance of the right to life and liberty. This ruling is anticipated to influence future cases, highlighting that the protection of fundamental rights transcends societal and legal norms regarding relationships.

Date of Decision:7th May 2024

Harpreet Kaur and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others

Latest Legal News