Married persons eloping to be in live-in violate right of parents to live with dignity, rules HC

According to the high court bench, giving protection to them (such couples) would be encouraging the wrongdoers and somewhere promoting the practice of bigamy.

The Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that married persons running away from homes to be in live-in relationships, are violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour.

The court said that all live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage and if the nature of relationship, which is there in the case in hand, the courts would be doing an injustice to the “wife and children who opposed that relationship”. (HT file)

The bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil further said that giving protection to them would be encouraging the “wrongdoers and somewhere promoting the practice of bigamy”, which otherwise is an offence, and further violating the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity. By directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship, the court added.

“The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners by running away from their parental home is not only bringing bad name to the family but also is violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour,” the bench recorded, while dismissing a bunch of pleas from married persons in live-in relationships, seeking protection from the court.

In the case in hand from Punjab, 40-year old woman was a live-in partner of a 44-year-old man. The woman was divorced but had children, the man was still married and also had children. There were two other similar cases dealt with this order by the court. They were in court seeking protection and alleging threat from their family members. The court observed that to attach legitimate sanctity to such a relation, certain conditions are required to be fulfilled by such partners. “Merely because 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,” it said.

The court said that all live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage and if the nature of relationship, which is there in the case in hand, the courts would be doing an injustice to the “wife and children who opposed that relationship”.

“Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship,” it said.

“In our diverse country, marriage as social tie is one of the essential of Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community. India is a country with a diverse set of principles traditions, rituals, and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem,” the court further opined.