LI Network
Published on: 22 September 2023 at 11:14 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, declined to provide police protection to a live-in couple, emphasizing that one of the individuals involved in the live-in relationship was still legally married to another person [Balwinder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others].
Justice Alok Jain raised significant concerns regarding the nature of the relationship, describing it as “illicit” and “promiscuous” due to the woman’s existing marriage and her son from that marital bond.
Despite the woman’s assertion that her husband had subjected her to physical abuse, the judge noted that she had not initiated divorce proceedings or taken any legal action in response.
The Court rejected the plea for protection for the woman and her live-in partner, highlighting that the petition contained only vague allegations of threats.
Justice Jain underscored, “Merely the sweet will of the petitioners and the right to life and liberty granted to them under the Constitution of India cannot be a right in isolation, and with every right, there comes a duty which is also to be adhered to.”
Previously, the couple had withdrawn a similar petition seeking protection against alleged threats to their lives and liberty. They had subsequently approached the police for protection.
Justice Jain considered it an “interesting case” but found that the petition lacked crucial information, such as the date of the woman’s marriage and the age of her child.
The Court noted that the present petition appeared misleading and aimed to conceal the extramarital relationship between petitioner No.1 (the woman) and petitioner No. 2. Additionally, the Court observed that the woman had not filed any complaints against her husband earlier, despite making allegations against him and his family in the protection plea.
The Court further pointed out that the couple had been cohabiting for more than four months. Nevertheless, the woman had not taken any steps to either seek a divorce from her husband or take legal action against him for the alleged abuse.
The Court stated, “She admittedly wanted to continue with both the relationships which is unknown to the cannons of social fabric, at least in this country,” ultimately dismissing the petition.
In a related case (Binder Kaur and anr v. State of Punjab), where a couple was in a live-in relationship despite their existing marriages, Justice Jain had previously rejected the petition seeking protection and imposed a fine of ₹2,500 on them.
The judge had emphasized, “One’s choice to live outside wedlock does not mean that married persons are free to live in a live-in relationship with others during the subsistence of marriage, as it would amount to transgressing the valid legal framework.”