Denial of protection to live-in couple travesty of justice: High Court

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 20

Clearing the air on the contentious issue of providing protection to a couple living together without tying the knot, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that live-in relationships may not be acceptable to all, but could not be termed illegal. The Bench also made it clear that denial of protection to a live-in couple would be a mockery of justice and it was not for the courts to judge them on their decision.

‘Entitled to equal protection’

The High Court has ruled that live-in couples are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country. Justice Sudhir Mittal also ruled that an individual had the right to formalise a relationship through marriage or adopt a non-formal approach of a live-in relationship. Justice Mittal said social acceptance for live-in-relationships was on the rise. In law, such a relationship was not prohibited and did not amount to commission of any offence.

Justice Jaishree Thakur also ruled that even the family could not raise an objection and cause a hindrance in peaceful existence, if a major chose a partner. It was for the state to ensure their protection and personal liberty.

The judgment comes less than a week after another Bench rejected a live-in couple’s protection plea as such a step could potentially “disturb the social fabric”. Justice Thakur added living together without marriage could not be said to constitute an offence. “If the petitioners have not committed any offence, this court sees no reason why their prayer for protection cannot be acceded to. With due respect to judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples in live in relationship, this court is unable to adopt the same view.”

Quoting a plethora of judgments, Justice Thakur asserted the court in the past and also recently allowed protection to runaway couples in a live-in relationship. Protection was also provided where marriage was invalid. Different High Courts, too, had allowed protection to unmarried runaway couples.

Justice Thakur added even under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, a woman in a ‘domestic relationship’ was provided protection and maintenance. The word ‘wife’ had not been used under the Act. As such, Parliament accorded adequate protection to women live-in-partners and the children of live-in-couples.

Justice Thakur further added one could not lose sight of honour killings prevalent in northern India, particularly in parts of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. It was a result of people marrying without family acceptance, at times outside their caste or religion.

Justice Thakur observed: “It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons opting to reside together without the sanctity of marriage, and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of and to uphold to the rule of law.”

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.