Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate

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