Married man in live-in relationship with widow: HC directs employer to deposit his salary into wife’s account

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the employer of a 59-year-old married man to credit his entire salary directly into his wife’s bank account to ensure that she and their children “live with dignity”, after dismissing a protection plea filed by him and a widow claiming to be in a live-in relationship. The Bench observed that a man could not be allowed to make vulnerable the lives of his dependent children by indulging in such escapades.

Justice Alok Jain held that the petitioner-couple failed to establish any real threat perception and that the petition apparently amounted to an attempt to shield a “promiscuous relationship”. The matter came up before the Bench on their plea seeking directions to the Punjab authorities to protect their lives and liberty from the man’s family members, who were allegedly opposed to the relationship.

During the hearing, the Bench was informed that the woman was a widow with three children, while the man was a 59-year-old with a wife and two children. The petitioners alleged that they, along with the widow’s children, were facing threats of elimination because of the relationship.

After examining the pleadings, Justice Jain found no material indicating any genuine threat perception. “A perusal of the petition does not demonstrate any threat perception and apparently seems to be an abuse of process of law to cover up the promiscuous relationship of the petitioners,” the court observed.

Turning to the impact of the man’s conduct on his family, Justice Jain observed that “the welfare of dependents of the petitioner i.e. his wife and children is completely ignored” and that the issue “needs to be addressed”. The court added: “A citizen cannot be permitted to jeopardise the lives of his dependent children by entering into such personal adventure.”

Keeping in view the welfare of the petitioner’s wife and children, the court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the man’s employer with instructions to ensure that his entire income was credited directly into his wife’s bank account so that they live with dignity.

The ruling is significant because the court has gone beyond merely rejecting the protection plea. Declining police protection after finding no material to substantiate the alleged threat perception, the Bench simultaneously fashioned a consequential remedy aimed at safeguarding the financial interests of the petitioner’s wife and children. In doing so, the court made it clear that disputes involving claims of personal liberty and live-in relationships could not be viewed in isolation where the rights and welfare of a dependent family were also at stake.