Courts can’t implicitly approve live-in relationship: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that granting protection to minors in live-in relationships would be like endorsing such arrangements — something the law strictly forbids to shield them from exploitation and moral risk. Justice Sumeet Goel also made it clear that a minor’s welfare and well-being was of paramount consideration.

“In adjudicating upon a petition for protection wherein minors are involved in a live-in relationship, the court must remain mindful of the fact that the paramount consideration remains the welfare and well-being of the minor in question. To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live-in arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established statutory framework designed to shield the young and impressionable from exploitation and moral peril,” said Justice Goel.

The Bench said the law, in its wisdom, has carefully restricted the freedom of minors, acknowledging their young age and vulnerability to undue influence and reckless decisions. Through legislative mandate, safeguards have been put in place to prevent any form of abuse or misconduct that could stem from the unrestrained discretion of those who are yet to reach full maturity.

“Any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor’s involvement in such a relationship would not only be antithetical to the legislative intent but would also undermine the very bulwark erected to preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence,” Justice Goel added.

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by a couple seeking protection. One of the petitioners was a 17-year-old girl. The petitioners contended that they had been in a live-in relationship and had earlier been engaged with family consent. The engagement was later called off. The couple claimed they were facing threats from their families and sought protection.

The court, however, held that relief could not be granted since one of the petitioners was a minor. It added that judicial intervention in such matters was required to be exercised with measured caution to ensure that court orders did not, even indirectly, condone what the law expressly prohibited.