The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that live-in couples facing threats are entitled to protection even if one partner is married to another person.

The decision came in the case of Yash Pal and Another vs State of Haryana and Others, where the court emphasized that self-autonomy in personal relationships is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bench Ruling on Threats to Live-In Couples

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma declared that regardless of societal or moral concerns, live-in couples are entitled to seek protection from any threats by family members or moral vigilantes.

The court explained that this protection is warranted as the relationship, though unconventional, cannot be obstructed by external forces.

Also Read: Well-Qualified Wife Should Not Rely Solely on Maintenance: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Consideration for Minors

However, the court introduced a safeguard when a live-in couple has a minor child. In such cases, the parent must prioritize the child’s welfare.

The court stated that while maintenance under existing laws can be sought, parental care and affection are crucial for the proper upbringing of a child.

Protection for the couple would thus be conditional upon the parent’s commitment to the child’s well-being.

Legal Questions Addressed

The ruling came in response to a reference by a single-judge Bench after encountering contradictory judgments on the matter. The court examined whether couples seeking protection should be granted it regardless of their marital status.

Additionally, the Division Bench referred to landmark Supreme Court decisions, including Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, which decriminalized adultery and emphasized the right to individual freedom in personal relationships.

Alternative Mechanisms for Protection

To reduce the burden on the judiciary, the court suggested mechanisms such as approaching the District Legal Services Authority or the State Human Rights Commission for assistance. These bodies could provide initial relief before escalating the matter to the courts.

Also Read: Supreme Court Bans Black-and-White Photos in Pleadings Without Prior Approval

Minors in Live-In Relationships

The court rejected protection for minors in live-in relationships, citing that minors cannot make legal contracts or exercise complete autonomy in their decisions.

The court emphasized its duty to act as parens patriae and ensure minors’ safety by placing them under the guardianship of their parents or, where necessary, the Juvenile Justice Act.

Key Details:

• Case: Yash Pal and Another vs State of Haryana and Others
• Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma
• Legal Counsel: Advocate PS Ahluwalia as amicus curiae, Additional Advocate General Pawan Girdhar for Haryana, Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain for the Union of India.