P&H HC Refuses Protection to Live-In Couple Involving Minor, Directs CWC Oversight

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that while the right to life and liberty under Article 21 extends to individuals in live-in relationships, such protection cannot be extended where one of the partners is a minor, as doing so would effectively legitimize an arrangement contrary to statutory safeguards designed to protect children.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhas Mehla declined to grant protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, noting that petitioner No.1 was 18 years old while petitioner No.2 was only 17, and therefore a minor.

The Court held that granting protection in such circumstances would defeat the legislative intent underlying child protection laws, but nevertheless issued directions to ensure the safety and welfare of the minor through the Child Welfare Committee and appropriate police intervention.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking police protection against alleged threats from private respondents arising out of the petitioners’ decision to reside together in a live-in relationship.

The petitioners had claimed that despite submitting a representation to the Superintendent of Police, no action had been taken, necessitating intervention by the Court.

On behalf of the State, it was submitted that although live-in relationships have been recognized in law in certain contexts, the present case stood on a fundamentally different footing as one of the partners had not attained the age of majority.

It was argued that a minor cannot legally enter into a live-in relationship and that extending protection in such cases would amount to endorsing an illegal and socially impermissible arrangement.

The State further contended that the Court, acting as parens patriae, bears a responsibility to safeguard the interests of minors and must prioritize their welfare over any asserted autonomy in such circumstances.

The Court, after considering the submissions, noted that while judicial precedents have recognized live-in relationships in the nature of marriage, such recognition is subject to certain essential conditions. Referring to decisions of the Supreme Court in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Court reiterated that a valid live-in relationship requires both parties to be of legal age to marry.

The Court further emphasized the statutory framework governing the rights and protection of minors.

It relied upon the Top Court’s ruling in Independent Thought v. Union of India to underscore that the age of consent is 18 years in all circumstances, including within marriage.

It also referred to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, all of which collectively establish a strict legal regime prohibiting child marriage and criminalizing sexual activity with minors irrespective of consent.

These laws, the Court observed, reflect a compelling state interest in protecting children and override personal or societal considerations.

In this backdrop, the Court held that granting police protection to a live-in couple where one partner is a minor would run contrary to the object and purpose of these welfare legislations.

It observed that such a course would effectively place judicial imprimatur on an arrangement that is not only legally untenable but also potentially harmful to the minor’s welfare.

At the same time, the Court did not ignore the apprehension of threat expressed by the petitioners.

It issued directions to the concerned Superintendent of Police to take cognizance of the representation and ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners. However, it clarified that such protection would not shield any illegal acts or prevent action in accordance with law against petitioner No.1, if warranted.

Significantly, the Court directed that the minor girl be produced before the Child Welfare Committee within one week.

The Committee was tasked with conducting an inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act, involving all stakeholders, and determining appropriate measures for the child’s care, protection, and well-being, including decisions regarding her custody, shelter, and safety. Interim measures were also permitted to ensure that the minor’s interests are safeguarded pending final determination.

The Court thus balanced competing considerations while refusing to extend legal protection to a relationship involving a minor, it ensured that the child is not left vulnerable and is instead brought within the protective framework of statutory welfare mechanisms.

The approach reflects the Court’s emphasis on child protection as a paramount concern, even in cases involving assertions of personal liberty.

Case Title: Sunny and another v. State of Haryana and others

Bench: Justice Subhas Mehla

Date of Judgment: 27.03.2026