Minor in live-in relationship can't seek police protection: Punjab and Haryana HC
AI generated image used for representational purpose What was the dispute about? Why did the high court dismiss the plea? Justice Sumeet Goel NEW DELHI
AI generated image used for representational purpose What was the dispute about? Why did the high court dismiss the plea? Justice Sumeet Goel NEW DELHI: The Punjab and Haryana high court, in an order dated August 3, dismissed a protection plea filed by a 16-year-old girl and her adult partner, holding that courts cannot grant protection to a live-in relationship involving a minor. The court said granting such protection would indirectly support a live-in relationship involving a minor, which the law does not permit.The petitioners sought police protection, alleging that they faced threats from the girl's family because they wanted to marry after she attained the age of majority. The girl, who was 16 years old, and the man, who was an adult, claimed they feared for their lives and liberty, as per the court order.The petitioners alleged that when they informed their families about their relationship, the girl's parents tried to force her to marry another person.
They claimed that when she refused, she was beaten and threatened with death. The girl alleged that she left her parental home on July 22, 2026, and started living with the man. They further alleged that one of her relatives sent a voice note threatening to kill both of them.The couple then approached the court to direct the police to protect their lives and stop the girl's family members from interfering with them.relied on an earlier division bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana high court, which held that minors in live-in relationships cannot seek protection from courts. The court observed that the law places restrictions on minors because they are considered incapable of making such decisions independently and their welfare remains the primary concern."To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live-in arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established statutory framework designed to shield the young and impressionable from exploitation and moral peril," the court observed.The court further observed that granting protection in such cases would go against the legal framework meant to safeguard minors.
It said courts must ensure the welfare of children and should not pass orders that indirectly support live-in relationships involving minors."The court, while exercising its protective jurisdiction, must treat with measured caution, ensuring that its decree does not, even by implication, countenance that which the law expressly deprecates," it added.The high court noted that the girl herself had admitted she was born on August 11, 2009, and was
The BriefWire