Cannot protect live-in relationships involving minor: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justice Goel highlighted that any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor’s involvement in such a relationship would not only be antithetical to the legislative intent but would also undermine the very bulwark erected to preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence.

Minor, adult live-in partner seek court protection

The petitioners, a 16-year-old girl and an adult man, approached the high court seeking police protection, claiming they were in a live-in relationship and intended to marry after the girl became an adult.

Justice Sumeet Goel heard the matter on August 3.

They alleged that the girl’s family opposed their relationship, tried to force her into another marriage, assaulted her, and threatened to kill both of them. According to the petition, the girl left her parental home on July 22 to live with the man after refusing the proposed marriage, and they sought protection for their life and personal liberty.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Harjinder Singh and Paras submitted that the petitioners have been well known to each other for a long time and intend to get married upon the 16-year-old girl attaining the age of adulthood, as she is a minor and the partner is already an adult.

It was further argued that when they informed their families about the relationship, the girl’s parents attempted to force her to marry another person. Upon her refusal, they allegedly assaulted her and threatened to kill her.

They contended that despite efforts by common relatives and respectable persons to resolve the dispute, the private respondents continued to harass them and intended to eliminate them.

Court refused protection to minor

The court observed that a division bench of this court had already held that courts cannot grant protection to a minor involved in a live-in relationship with an adult, as a minor lacks the legal capacity to make such choices.

It noted that extending protection in such cases would run contrary to the statutory framework governing minors and would amount to indirectly approving a relationship that the law does not recognise.

“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,” it added.

The bench underscored that the law, in its sagacity, has circumscribed the liberties of minors, recognising their tender age and the consequential susceptibility to undue influence and imprudent choices.

The court noted that it was an admitted fact that the petitioner was born on August 11, 2009, and was about 16 years and 11 months old when the petition was filed. Since she was admittedly a minor, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the police protection sought.