In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that live-in relationships involving married individuals infringe upon the dignity of their parents and violate the sanctity of marriage. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil in a series of writ petitions (CRWP-4018-2024, CRWP-5583-2024, and CRWP-6117-2024) involving couples seeking protection from threats due to their live-in relationships.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, requesting protection for the petitioners’ life and liberty from threats posed by private respondents, who were opposed to their relationships. The factual matrix of the leading case, CRWP-4018-2024, revealed that the petitioners, both over 40 years old, were in a live-in relationship despite being previously married. Petitioner No. 1 had divorced her husband in 2013, while Petitioner No. 2 was still married and had not obtained a divorce.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues addressed by the court included:
– The legitimacy and protection of live-in relationships under Indian law, especially when one or both parties are already married.
– The impact of such relationships on the social fabric and the dignity of the families involved.
– The interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution concerning the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity.
Court’s Decision
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while delivering the judgment, emphasized the importance of marriage as a social institution in India. He noted that marriage is considered a sacred relationship with significant legal and social consequences. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755, which held that live-in relationships involving married individuals amount to adultery and bigamy, thus being unlawful.
Key Observations of the Court:
1. Cultural and Social Context: “India is recognized for its democratic administration and domestic framework. Marriage is one of the essential social ties in Indian society, and it must be preserved for a stable community.”
2. Legal Precedents: “The Hon’ble Apex Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma held that live-in relationships between married individuals are not akin to marriage and do not warrant protection under the Domestic Violence Act.”
3. Impact on Family Dignity: “The petitioners, by running away from their parental home, not only bring a bad name to the family but also violate the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour.”
4. Article 21 of the Constitution: “Under Article 21, each individual has the right to live with peace, dignity, and honour. Allowing such petitions would encourage bigamy and violate the rights of the other spouse and children.”
5. Social Fabric: “Granting protection to couples in such relationships would disturb the social fabric of society. The sanctity of marriage presupposes divorce, and live-in relationships cannot be at the cost of the country’s social fabric.”
Also Read
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petitions, stating that the relationships in question did not meet the criteria for a “relationship in the nature of marriage” as defined by the Supreme Court.
