[Live-in relationship] "Courts should not judge petitioners based on their decision to reside together sans marriage, attained age of majority": Punjab & Haryana HC

In the matter of Soniya and another vs. State of Haryana and others, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on May 18th, 2021, passed an order pertaining to “Live-in relationships”.

Facts

The petitioner, in this case, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioners were seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents (no.2), who were the family members of the petitioner no.1.

Further, the facts of the case say, that the family members of petitioner no.1 wanted her to marry someone of their choice and even threatened her in case if she didn’t do so. Due to which the petitioner no. 1 left her paternal house and called out for help from petitioner no. 2, and consequently decided to live together till the time petitioner no. 2 attains the age of marriage (21 for male as per section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act) so that they could solemnize their marriage.

As petitioner no. 1 (aged 22 years) and petitioner no. 2 (aged 19 years) were living together, without a valid marriage and both the petitioners were from a different caste, it was certain that their relationship would have never been accepted by the family members of petitioner no. 1. The family members of petitioner no. 1 have also threatened to kill both the petitioners. The petitioners even approached the concerned police station but there was no response; hence they approached the hon’ble court seeking protection under the said provision.

Observation of the Court

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Jaishree Thakur supported his judgment by putting reference to multiple decisions pertaining to the similar issue from the coordinate courts, other High courts, and even quoted Supreme Court of India.

Since similar cases were reported at the High court of Punjab and Haryana pertaining to the validity and seeking protection in a “live-in relationship”, some benches had a different approach to such matters, and even declared “live-in relationships” as immoral and not socially acceptable and couples were denied any sort of protection.

But this Hon’ble court had a different approach, the hon’ble court observed that,
 “The petitioners have not approached this court either seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship. The limited prayer as noted is for grant of protection to them, fearing the ire of family members of petitioner No.1, on account of the parties belonging to a different caste and their decision to reside together without the sanctity of a valid marriage”.

Further, the Hon’ble court referred to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Rajwinder Kaur and another Versus State of Punjab, 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 785 where it was held that marriage is not a must for security to be provided to a runaway couple. The police authorities were directed to ensure that no harm was caused by anyone to the life and liberty of the couple. Similar views have been taken by the Coordinate Benches in the matter Rajveer Kaur Versus State of Punjab, 2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 478 and in Priyapreet Kaur Versus. State of Punjab, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 604.

The Hon'ble court again referred to some recent judgement rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Kamini Devi vs. State of UP, 2021(1) RCR (Civil) 421 and in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396.

The Hon’ble court stated, “The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. Even under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who is in a ‘domestic relationship’ has been provided protection, maintenance etc. It is interesting to note that the word ‘wife’ has not been used under the said Act. Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children of live-in-couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament”.

The Hon'ble court even referred to one of the existing societal evil, “Honour Killings”, and stated, “At this stage, one cannot also lose sight of honour killings which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Honour killing is a result of people marrying without their family’s acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion. Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence”.

“In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to uphold to the Rule of law," the court added.

The order also states that the courts shouldn’t judge petitioners based on their decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage as in the present case, the petitioners have attained the age of majority.

Reference to a Supreme Court judgement- In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600, held that “live in relationship is permissible and the act of two adults living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful, while further holding that the issue of morality and criminality are not co-extensive”.

Thus, this court decided in favour of the petitioners granting them protection from the private respondents.