Minors Involved In Live-In Relationships Cannot Seek Police Protection From Courts: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that minors involved in live-in relationships, either with an adult or another minor, cannot seek police protection from the Court. The Court emphasized that minors lack the legal competence to enter into contracts, which extends to live-in relationships.
The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma made this observation while addressing a reference from a single judge after noticing contradictory judgments from other single benches on the issue. The Bench categorically stated that the legal incapacity of minors to form contracts applies equally to entering into live-in relationships.
The Bench highlighted that minors, regardless of their religious denomination, are legally barred from entering into contracts. For minors belonging to the Hindu community, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, govern the relationship between minors and their guardians, reinforcing the statutory limitations on minors’ discretion.
For minors from other religious communities, the Indian Majority Act applies, which similarly prescribes the age of majority and imposes restrictions on their ability to contract.
"A minor in a live-in relationship with an adult or where the live-in relationship is partnered only by minors, thereby the concerned cannot seek the protection from Courts of law. The reason for making the said conclusion becomes firmly embedded in the factum, that a minor belonging to any religious denomination, thus is incompetent to contract. If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom. Contrarily the freedom to make choices by the minors are ably fettered, by the statutes respectively nomenclatured as The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and, as nomenclatured as Guardians and Wards Act, 1890," the Court noted.
The Division Bench cited statutory provisions, explaining that minors are barred from entering into contracts under the Indian Contract Act. This legal incapacity, the Court noted, extends to their ability to form live-in relationships. The Court remarked, “There is a bar against a minor entering into a contract...disability whereof also covers the makings of ill choices qua the entering into a live-in relationship either with a minor or with an adult.”
The Bench added that if the Court were to grant protection to minors in live-in relationships, it would be contradicting the statutory limitations placed on the discretion of minors. In particular, the Court expressed concern that providing legal protection to such relationships would undermine established legal principles that regulate the conduct of minors. The Court observed, “If protection is provided to minor partners, who are in a live-in relationship where only one of them is a minor, or where both are minors, thereby the granting of the espoused protection, rather would run counter, vis-a-vis, well statutory crampings of discretions of a minor.”
The Court, in its capacity as parens patriae (protector of minors), emphasized its duty to ensure the welfare of minors involved in such situations. The Bench explained that in cases where minors are found to be in live-in relationships, their custody should be returned to their parents or natural guardians, as it is in the best interest of the child.
The Court remarked, “The said solemn duty (parens patriae) cast upon Courts of law, naturally requires that the minor concerned, rather than being permitted to be a partner in a live-in relationship either with a minor or with an adult, thus his/her custody is required to be ensured to be retrieved to his/her parents, and, natural guardian.”
However, the Court provided a significant exception to this general rule. In cases where the Court finds that there is an imminent threat to the life or safety of a minor involved in a live-in relationship, it can invoke the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court may then direct that the minor be placed in a safe facility, such as a Children’s Home or Nari Niketan, until they attain the age of majority.
The Bench clarified, “In case the Court is of the opinion that there is an imminent threat to the life of the minor, it can proceed as per relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Court can direct the minor till his or her attaining majority, to stay comfortably at Children Home or at a Nari Niketan.”
Cause Title: Yash Pal and another v. State of Haryana and others [Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:118245-DB]
Click here to read/download the Judgment
