The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant police protection to a live-in couple, where one partner was already married with children. The Court observed that allowing such a plea would encourage bigamy and infringe upon the rights of the spouse and children of the married partner.

The Single-Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil emphasized that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to live with dignity, but it must be exercised within the bounds of law.

“By allowing such petitions, we are encouraging wrongdoers and promoting bigamy, which is an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. This also violates the fundamental rights of the spouse and children to live with dignity under Article 21,” the Court observed.

The Court highlighted that the right to reputation is a universal right good against all. “Article 21 places fundamental rights on a higher pedestal, and permitting such relationships undermines the sanctity of lawful marital bonds and the rights associated with them,” the Court added.

Advocate Kulwinder Singh Lakhanpal appeared for the respondent.

The Bench remarked that to legitimize a live-in relationship, certain legal and societal conditions must be met. Merely living together for a few days does not suffice to claim protection, the Court noted, cautioning against orders that might inadvertently validate illicit relationships.

The Court also emphasized the importance of preserving moral values and customs for a stable society. “Marriage, a sacred institution in India, carries significant cultural and social value. While parts of India may be adopting modern lifestyles, such as live-in relationships, they should not override the sanctity of marriage and societal norms,” the Single-Bench stated.

The Court criticized the couple for bringing disrepute to their families by running away and violating their parents’ right to live with dignity and honor. “The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the dignity of one’s family and community,” the Bench added.

Citing the Allahabad High Court's decision in Smt. Aneeta and Another v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that a person married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cannot seek legal protection for an illicit relationship that contravenes societal norms and the legal framework.

The petition, filed by the couple apprehending threats from relatives, was dismissed. The Court concluded that granting protection in such cases would erode the social fabric and the sanctity of lawful marital relationships. "In view of the above discussions and reading of the above clearly indicates that to attach legitimate sanctity to such a relation, certain conditions are required to be fulfilled by such partners. 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. Resultantly, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Hence, the same is dismissed," the Court said.

Cause Title: XYZ v. State of Punjab & Ors [Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:168063]

Click here to read/download the Order