Brings bad name to family: High Court denies protection to run away live-in couple
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, observing that while such relationships are
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, observing that while such relationships are increasingly being adopted as a "modern lifestyle" by a section of society, courts must also consider their impact on family dignity and social norms. Dismissing the petition filed by a Punjab couple, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that merely staying together for a short period cannot automatically establish a legally recognised live-in relationship. The court noted that the couple themselves had stated that they intended to marry in the future and were currently living together pending marriage. Read Full Story "The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners, by running away from their parental home, are not only bringing bad name to the family but also are violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour," the court observed in its June 5 order.
The court said India derives its legal and social framework from a diverse set of traditions, beliefs and customs, adding that marriage continues to enjoy significant social and legal recognition. Describing marriage as "a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem", the court observed that Indian society has historically attached importance to moral and ethical values. The court, however, noted that a section of society has increasingly embraced live-in relationships as part of a changing lifestyle. Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, the court reiterated that every individual is entitled to live with peace, dignity and honour, and that reputation is an important facet of personal liberty. The judgment also referred to earlier rulings that declined protection to couples in live-in relationships, observing that granting such relief in every case could disrupt the existing social fabric.
During the hearing, the court took note of the petitioners' own submission that the male partner had not yet attained the legal age for marriage and that the couple planned to marry once he became eligible. According to the plea, both petitioners were above 18 years of age, unmarried and in a consensual relationship. They claimed they were living together in a live-in arrangement and intended to solemnise their marriage in the near future. The couple alleged that the woman's family was interfering in their lives, pressuring her to leave the relationship and threatening to implicate the man in a false criminal case. Seeking protection, they had submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police on June 1.
The BriefWire