No marriage? No problem: Punjab and Haryana High Court rules live-in couples entitled to protection under Article 21

Is marriage a necessary condition for a couple to seek state’s protection?

To answer this, the court referred to two earlier decisions of the high court – Pardeep Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others (decided May 18, 2021) and Rajwinder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others (decided October 9, 2014).

Right to choose partner part of Article 21

• The individual also has the right to formalise the relationship with the partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship, said the court, citing its own 2021 verdict.
• The concept of live-in relationships has crept into our society from Western nations and initially, found acceptance in metropolitan cities, probably because individuals felt that formalisation of a relationship through marriage was not necessary for complete fulfilment.
• In law, such a relationship is not prohibited, nor does it amount to the commission of any offence and thus, in my considered view, such persons are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country.
• The law postulates that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and must be protected (Article 21 of the Constitution), irrespective of individual views.
• Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples who have married against the wishes of their respective parents.
• An identical situation exists where the couple has entered into a live-in relationship.
• The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted.
• They are thus entitled to the same relief.

Protection even without marriage

• We have no reason to doubt that the fundamental right to life and liberty is so sacrosanct and stands at such a high pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of an incident like solemnisation of a valid marriage between the parties, said the court, relying on the 2014 judgment.
• While the appellants might be required to satisfy an appropriate forum regarding the validity of their marriage but even in the absence of such validation, the state is obligated to protect their life and liberty.

Direction to police

• After considering the legal position, the court concluded that the petitioners, being adults in a live-in relationship, are entitled to protection of their life and liberty.
• The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali, to consider the representation dated February 16, 2026.
• Assess the threat perception faced by the petitioners, and take appropriate steps to ensure that no harm is caused to them.

Couple moves HC alleging threat from kin

• The petitioners, both majors, approached the high court against their families seeking protection of their lives and liberty.
• According to their plea, they are in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their respective family members.
• Advocate Mohan Singh Rana, appearing for the couple, submitted that they had already submitted a representation dated February 16 to the Mohali SSP seeking protection.
• However, they remained apprehensive about their safety, alleging inaction on the part of the authorities and influence wielded by their family members.
• The petition stated that the threat was not from society at large but specifically from close relatives who disapproved of their relationship.

State asked to respond, legal issue examined

• When the matter came up for hearing, the court issued notice of motion.
• On behalf of the state, Additional Advocate General Sahil Chowdhary accepted the notice.
• The court then turned to a broader constitutional question that has repeatedly surfaced in such cases.

Clarifications by court

• The court clarified that the order has been passed on the premise that both petitioners have attained the age of majority, as reflected in their Aadhaar cards placed on record.
• The order does not amount to judicial approval or endorsement of the legality of their relationship.
• The petitioners will not be entitled to protection against arrest or from criminal proceedings if they are found involved in any cognisable offence.