Live-in relationship sans divorce is lustful, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 7

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has described as “lustful and adulterous” the life of a couple in a live-in relationship without seeking divorce from their spouses. The bench has also made it clear that naming the person extending threat to life and liberty in the plea for protection was essential for the presumption of apprehension.

The ruling by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan came on a petition filed by a couple for the issuance of directions to the “official respondents” to protect their life and liberty from their spouses as they were in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their relatives.

The bench was told that the both were married, but loved each other for the last many years and had developed some understanding and liking. For the past one month, they were in a live-in-relationship. As such, the respondents were annoyed with them. It was further submitted in the plea that the woman-petitioner had filed a divorce petition, but it had not been granted so far.

Justice Sangwan asserted that the perusal of their application/representation, dated September 27 addressed to Kaithal Superintendent of Police, stated that they were having apprehensions at the hands of certain persons. But such persons were not referred to in the entire representation. Nothing was stated “as to from whom the petitioners are apprehending threat”.

Justice Sangwan added that both petitioners, on the face of it, were living a lustful and adulterous life with each other without seeking divorce from their spouses and had relied upon a totally vague document — a representation wherein the person they were apprehending threat to their life and liberty was not mentioned.

“It is worth noticing here that in the absence of any allegation by not naming anyone in the representation, it cannot be presumed that both petitioners have any apprehension from their own spouses and this petition has been filed just to obtain a seal of this court on their so-called live-in relationship. On the face of it, the representation appears to be a fake document as no receipt or diary number of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, is given or attached,” Justice Sangwan asserted while dismissing the petition. 

Naming person issuing threat essential

• n A couple had filed a petition for the issuance of directions to the ‘official respondents’ to protect their life and liberty from their spouses as they were in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their relatives.
• n The court said naming the person extending threat to life and liberty in the plea for protection was essential for the presumption of apprehension