Live-In Relationships Of Married Individuals Harm Family Reputations & Right Of Parents To Live With Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Police Protection To Couple

The Court's remarks came while dealing with petitions filed by couples in live-in relationships despite their existing marital commitments. Three couples had sought police protection to continue their live-in relationships.

A Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil expressed concerns about such relationships potentially tarnishing the reputation of the individuals' families and infringing on the dignity and honor of their parents. The Court said, “The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners by running away from their parental home is not only bringing bad name to the family but also is violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour.”

Advocate Rahi Mehra appeared for the Petitioners.

The Court underscored that while Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity, this right must be exercised within the bounds of the law. The Court said, “Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution each and every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour, therefore, by allowing such type of petitions we are encouraging the wrongdoers and somewhere promoting the practice of bigamy which is otherwise an offence under Section 494 IPC, further violating the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity.”

The Court ruled against granting police protection, arguing that doing so would be equivalent to endorsing these relationships, which he suggested could undermine societal norms and moral values deeply rooted in Indian culture. The Court added, “this court is of the view that India is recognized for its democratic administration and domestic framework. People, on the whole, have a strong attachment to their houses, perceiving that a human has a marriage is the most important cognitive process. In our diverse country, marriage as social tie is one the essential of Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community.”

The Court also noted that India, with its diverse traditions and beliefs, places high importance on marriage, which carries legal and social obligations. It stressed that marriage is not just a personal affair but has broader public significance and entails responsibilities, particularly regarding the support and upbringing of children.

The Court asserted that recognizing live-in relationships without sufficient justification could be detrimental to the rights of spouses and children from existing marriages. The Court added, “Merely because the two persons are living together for few days, their claim of live-in-relationship based upon bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in live-in-relationship and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship, and, therefore, the orders cannot be passed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of life to all citizens, but such freedom has to be within the ambit of law.”

However, the Court made it clear that while it could not grant protection under Article 21 in this context, petitioners could still approach police authorities with a detailed account of any genuine threats or grievances they might face. The police were instructed to investigate such claims thoroughly.

Cause Title: X & Ors. v. State Of Punjab & Ors., [2024:PHHC:094574]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Rahi Mehra, Vikram Singh Narwal, and Suman Kumari.