Runaway live-in couple can bring ‘bad name’ to family, says court, denies protection

“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 June 5 order read. 

Justice Sandeep Moudgil mentioned that our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning.

‘Marriage a holy relationship’

• The court highlighted that a portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship. 
• It was further pointed out that India is a country with a diverse set of principles, traditions, rituals, and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. 
• It was added that marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem.
• The court mentioned that our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. 
• However, the court also pointed out that as time has passed, society has started to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. 
• The court added that under Article 21 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour. 
• It was further mentioned that every person has a right to have his reputation preserved.
• The court added that Article 21 of the Constitution places fundamental rights on a much higher pedestal and it must be preserved since it is sacred under the Constitutional scheme. 
• It was added that there are various cases where the court has refused to grant the protection to the couples living in a live-in relationship.
• The court also focused that the basis of such denial was that if such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed.
• The court noted that the man is yet to attain the marriageable age and will marry the woman thereafter. 

We will get married soon

The petitioners claimed that they are major, being more than 18 years of age and are unmarried. It was claimed that both the petitioners like and love each other and want to get married and are, for the present, living together in a ‘ live-in relationship.’  

It was added that the families of the women are interfering in their life and harassing them and are pressuring her to leave the company of the man. It was also added that the woman’s family has warned that if she did not leave the man, they will implicate him in a false case. 

It was alleged that the petitioners want to live together till they perform marriage and, as such, have sent a representation to the superintendent of police on June 1. 

Advocate Komal Sidhu represented the petitioners, whereas additional advocate general Rajiv Verma represented the state.