The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a protection plea filed by a couple in a live-in relationship, where one partner is already married to another person. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi emphasized that protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India under Article 21, regardless of the legality of the relationship.
The High Court was hearing a Criminal Writ Petition filed by a couple seeking protection of their life and liberty from private respondents. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the legality of the petitioners’ relationship, directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ representation regarding threat perception and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the petition:
- Petitioner No. 1 is stated to have been born on September 22, 2000. She had previously solemnized a marriage with Respondent No. 4, and a girl child was born out of that wedlock.
- Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be unmarried and born on November 3, 2001.
The petitioners submitted that they are currently in a “Live-in Relationship.” They expressed apprehension regarding their safety and sought directions for the protection of their lives and liberty.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioners’ Contentions: Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on several precedents to support the claim for protection despite the nature of the relationship:
- Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others (CRWP-4521-2021): Counsel submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench had granted protection to petitioners living in a live-in relationship.
- Paramjit Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others (CRWP-7874-2021): Reference was made to an order where protection was granted even though a divorce petition filed by one of the parties had been dismissed.
- Amandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (CRWP-10411-2021): Counsel relied on this order where the Court granted protection in a case where one party was married and living with a person other than their spouse.
The counsel further submitted that the petitioners had sent a representation dated November 16, 2025 (Annexure P-3) to Respondent No. 2 and would be satisfied if the respondent was directed to look into the threat perception.
The State’s Stand: The Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on advance notice, stated that he had no objection if Respondent No. 2 was directed to look into the representation regarding threat perception and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi reviewed the cited judgments and the constitutional principles governing the right to life and liberty.
On Individual Autonomy and Social Acceptance: The Court referred to the judgment in Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others, quoting the Co-ordinate Bench’s observation on the changing social dynamics:
“The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the land. Right to life and liberty is enshrined therein and is treated as a basic feature. The said right includes the right of an individual to full development of his/her potential in accordance with his/her choice and wish and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to choose a partner of his/her choice… The concept of live-in-relationships has crept into our society from western nations… Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and villages also as is evident from this petition. This shows that social acceptance for live-in-relationships is on the increase.”
On Protection Despite Matrimonial Disputes: The Court extensively discussed the Division Bench judgment in Ishrat Bano and another vs. State of Punjab and others (LPA-769-2021). In that case, a Single Judge had initially dismissed a protection plea, observing it as a “ploy to seek a seal of this Court regarding the lustful and adulterous life.” However, the Division Bench set aside that dismissal, holding that protection cannot be denied solely based on the nature of the relationship.
Justice Bedi quoted the Division Bench in Ishrat Bano:
“No doubt, in case a criminal case is registered against any of the parties, the law should take its own course, however, the life and liberty of any person who has approached the Court with such a grievance need to be taken care of and the protection be provided as permissible in law.”
Conclusion on Article 21: Applying these principles to the present case, Justice Bedi observed:
“Thus, this Court is of the view that even if the petitioners are living in a ‘Live in Relationship’, they are entitled to the protection of their life and liberty… Whenever this Court, prima-facie, is satisfied that on account of some relatives/ persons being unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, then in such circumstances, the Courts are required to pass necessary directions for their protection.”
The Decision
The High Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
- Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the representation dated November 16, 2025.
- The authority must assess the threat perception to the petitioners and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
Clarification: The Court explicitly clarified that this order does not grant immunity from legal proceedings:
“It is, however, clarified that this order shall not debar the State and/or any person aggrieved from initiating appropriate proceedings against any or both of the petitioners, if any cause of action arises by the petitioners ‘living in’ together or if they are involved in any case.”
