On live-in relationship, not for us to judge couple's decision: Punjab and Haryana high court
The court was informed that upon learning about the relationship between the girl and her partner, her parents wanted her to marry a person of their choice, following which the girl left her paternal home to live with her partner.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has refused to intervene in a couple's decision to stay together in a live-in relationship without the sanctity of marriage stating that if a couple has decided, it is not for the courts to judge them on their agreement.
"The petitioners herein have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision," the bench of justice Sant Parkash observed while hearing the plea filed by a 17-year-old girl and a 20-year-old boy from Bathinda in Punjab. They had moved to court seeking protection from the family members of the girl. The order was passed by the bench on June 3.
The court was informed that upon learning about the relationship between the girl and her partner, her parents wanted her to marry a person of their choice, following which the girl left her paternal home to live with her partner. They have decided to live together till the time they are legally allowed to solemnise their marriage, they submitted.
Also read: Live-in couples entitled to protection, rules Punjab and Haryana HC
On denying protection to people who opt for live-in relationships with dire consequences, the court said, "It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons whom protection is sought."
"In case, such a course is adopted and protection denied, the court would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to uphold to the Rule of Law," the court observed.
Spotlighting the killings by families in the name of 'honour', the court said, "At this stage one cannot lose sight of honour killings which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh."
"Honour killing is a result of people marrying without their family's acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion. Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is for the State at this juncture, to ensure their protection and their personal liberty," the bench said.
Also read: Runaway couples seeking protection share their ordeal
The court underlined that the petitioners have not asked the court for permission to marry or to approve their relationship.
Observing that such a relationship does not amount to offence, the court said, "The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence."
The court further added that once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. “It is for the State at this juncture, to ensure their protection and their personal liberty," the bench added.
Notably, the Supreme Court has granted protection to a live-in couple in Tarn Taran, whose petition was dismissed by high court on May 11 observing that they in the garb of filing the petition are seeking seal of approval on their relationship, which is “morally and socially not acceptable” and no protection order in the petition can be passed.
The apex court in its order on June 4 granted protection observing, “Needless to state that since it concerns life and liberty, the Superintendent of Police is required to act expeditiously in accordance with law, including the grant of any protection to the petitioners in view of the apprehensions/ threats, uninfluenced by the observations of the High Court.”
