‘Everyone has right to choose’: Punjab and Haryana High Court protects married man, live-in partner

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal heard the matter on April 1.

The order referred to the division bench judgement in Ishrat Bano and another v State of Punjab and others, and said that the bench after considering the aspect of the protection of the life and liberty being of paramount consideration and without getting into the issue as to whether the relationship between the parties was legal or not, even even though there was a criminal case registered against the parties, however, granted them protection.

Case of live-in relationship with married man

The petitioner sought directions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for protection against the private respondents. The man, born in 1988, is currently married with two children, while the woman, born in 2001.

The couple alleged they faced threat perception from relatives due to their “live-in relationship”.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Anosh Samson placed reliance on Pardeep Singh and another v State of Haryana and others judgment and submitted that it has granted protection in a case where the petitioners were living in a “live-in relationship”.

Advocate Samson further referred Paramjit Kaur and another v State of Punjab and others, and argued that although the divorce petition filed by the petitioner no.2 therein was dismissed, this court had granted protection to the petitioners.

Representing the state, the deputy advocate general Ravinder Singh stated that he has no objection in case the police authority is directed to look into the representation of the petitioners on the aspect of threat perception and to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

Question of legality of such relationship

The court noted that even if the petitioners are living in a “live-in relationship”, they are entitled to the protection of their life and liberty.

On the aspect that the man in this relationship is married and not being divorced, the court referred to Ishrat Bano and another v State of Punjab and others judgement, where the plea was dismissed by the single judge.

The court remarked that perusal of this judgment would show that the court had primarily observed that the divorce documents were one-sided documents; thus, prima facie, it appeared that the divorce was not legal.

The court further cited a division bench judgement in this case, which held that the life and liberty of a person must be protected regardless of whether their relationship is deemed legal or if criminal cases are registered against them.

Justice Chahal noted that when a court is prima facie satisfied that relatives may cause harm due to unhappiness with a relationship, it is required to issue protective directions.

Without commenting on the legality of the petitioner’s relationship or the merits of the case, the court disposed of the plea by directing the commissioner of police, Amritsar, to assess the threat perception and take appropriate legal action.

Related rulings

• Recently, observing that “morality and law have to be kept apart”, the Allahabad High Court has said that “a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person” is not a crime.
• The court made this observation while hearing a live-in couple’s writ petition seeking protection and ordered the Superintendent of Police (SP) concerned to ensure their security.
• The woman’s mother, in an FIR lodged on January 8 at the Jaitipur police station in UP’s Shahjahanpur, alleged that the 30-year-old man, who is already married, had abducted her 18-year-old daughter to lure her into marriage. The counsel for the family also submitted that it was an offence for the married man to stay with another woman in a live-in relationship.

• Days before a division bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that “a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person” is not a crime, a single bench of the same court issued a different ruling — it had observed that two married people can’t be in a live-in relationship without seeking divorce from their spouses.
• The single bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this observation on March 20 while rejecting a plea seeking police protection by a couple, who were still married to their spouses. The duo, in their writ petition, said they had apprehensions of a threat to their lives and prayed for police protection.