In a landmark ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has declared that minors in live-in relationships are not entitled to seek legal protection from the court, given their incapacity to enter into a contract under Indian law. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudepti Sharma in a case involving petitions CRWP No. 4660 of 2021, CRWP No. 149 of 2024, and LPA No. 968 of 2021.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, in two separate cases (CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024), sought directions from the court for protection of their life and liberty, claiming threats from their respective families due to their live-in relationships. The first petition involved a man already married but living with another woman in a live-in relationship, intending to marry her after obtaining a divorce. The second case also involved a woman in a live-in relationship with another man while still being legally married.
The third case (LPA No. 968 of 2021) was an appeal challenging a previous order dated August 31, 2021, which dismissed a similar petition seeking protection to life and liberty for a live-in couple, with costs imposed on the appellant.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal issue before the court was whether minors or persons already in a legally binding marriage could seek court protection for their life and liberty while in a live-in relationship. The court also considered whether granting such protection would undermine the sanctity of the existing marriage and conflict with public policy.
The court examined a series of past judgments from various benches of co-ordinate strength, which presented conflicting views on whether persons in live-in relationships, where one partner is already married, should be granted protection.
Court’s Decision
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that minors cannot enter into live-in relationships as they lack the legal capacity to enter into a contract. “Minors are incompetent to contract, and as such, cannot claim the status of a live-in partner, which is predicated upon a consensual contract between adults,” the court observed.
The bench further emphasized that protecting such relationships would contravene public policy, especially when one of the parties is already married. The court underscored that live-in relationships where one partner is married do not receive legal recognition, and any protection order in such cases would be contrary to law.
Key Observations by the Court
In its judgment, the court stated:
1. “Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty, the Court is not required to grant them protection per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case.”
2. “The fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution does not extend to validating or protecting a relationship that inherently contravenes the existing legal norms, particularly when one of the parties is underage or already married.”
3. “Minors lack the legal competence to consent to such arrangements, and recognizing or protecting such relationships would create a dangerous precedent.”
The case was argued by Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. Representing the state were Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, and Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms. Neha Sharma, Central Government Counsel.
