Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a criminal writ petition filed by the petitioners, living together in live-in relationship, seeking directions to the State for the protection of their life and liberty, the Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil, J., dismissed the application holding that the petitioners could not have entered a live-in relationship while being fully aware that one of them was still married and they did not meet the conditions required for their relationship to be granted sanctity of a relationship akin to marriage. The Court also stated that if such protection was granted it would mean indirectly giving assent to such a relationship which was otherwise illegal as it amounted to bigamy.
Background
Petitioner 1 and petitioner 2 were living together, even though petitioner 1 was married and had two children from the marriage. They wished to be in a live-in relationship, but respondents were threatening their lives and liberty. Thus, they filed the present petition.
Analysis
The Court stated that “In our diverse country, marriage as social tie is one the essential of Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community. India is a country with a diverse set of principles traditions, rituals, and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, the live-in relationship.”
Regarding the status of live-in relationship during the persistence of an existing marriage, the Court placed reliance on the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, , wherein it was held that all live-in relationships could not be considered synonymous to the relationships in the “nature of marriage”. A live-in relationship between a married man and a woman or a married woman and a man was not akin to marriage, as it amounted to adultery and bigamy, which was unlawful.
Thus, the Court viewed that the petitioners could not have entered a live-in relationship while being fully aware that one of them was previously married, in fact, petitioner 1 did not take a divorce from her previous marriage. Hence, the Court said that the relationship between the petitioners was not a relationship in the nature of marriage because it had no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage. The Court added that the status of petitioner 1 was lower than that of a wife and would not fall within the definition of a domestic relationship under Section of the .
The Court stated that if it held that the relationship between the petitioners was a relationship in the nature of a marriage, it would be doing injustice to the wife/ husband and children who opposed the relationship. The Court observed that “Entering into marriage, therefore, is to enter into a relationship that has public significance as well. The institutions of marriage and the family are important social institutions that provide for the security and bear an important role in the rearing of children.”
Further, the Court observed that under Article of the , every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity, and honour, and allowing such type of petitions would be encouraging the wrongdoers and promoting bigamy, which would violate the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity. Moreover, every person has a right to have his reputation preserved, which is a jus-in-rem i.e., a right against all in the world.
Further, the Court said that by running away from their parental home, the petitioners were not only bringing a bad name to their families but also violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour.
The Court also referred to D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, , wherein it was held that the pre-requisite for a live-in relationship was that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
The Court relied on Simranjeet Kaur v. State of Haryana, , and Kavita v. State of Haryana, , wherein the Court refused to grant protection to a couple in a live-in relationship on the ground that the petitioners therein, were still married. The Court referred to the case of Smt. Aneeta v State of U.P. wherein it was stated that the Court was not against granting protection to people who wanted to live together irrespective of the fact as to which community, caste, or sex they belonged. But no law-abiding citizen who was already married under the , could seek the protection of this Court for such an illicit relationship, which was not within the purview of social fabric.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that certain conditions were required to be fulfilled by the petitioners for legitimate sanctity to be attached to such a relationship.
The Court observed-“Merely because the two persons are living together for few days, their claim of live-in relationship based upon bald averment may not be enough to hold that they were truly in a live-in relationship and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship, and, therefore, the orders cannot be passed under Article of the which guarantees freedom of life to all citizens, but such freedom has to be within the ambit of the law.”
Thus, the Court held that it was not a fit case for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition. However, the Court also stated that if the petitioners make an application/representation to the police authorities showing that they have a genuine grievance or threat to their lives and liberty, the police authority may do the needful after verification of all the facts.
[X v. State of Punjab, Criminal Writ Petition No. 12096 of 2024, decided on: 16-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Kulwinder Singh Lakhanpal
WP(C) No.14443 of 2021
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .