Read Time: 06 minutes

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that, if two adult people are in a live-in relationship with each other, even though they are already married to someone else, it would not amount to an offence.

The Single Bench of Justice Anmol Rattan Singh during the course of hearing, disagreed with Allahabad High Court's Social Fabric ruling as stated in Smt. Aneeta and another v. State of U.P. & three others where the High Court had observed that, live-in-relationship can't be at the cost of the social fabric of this Country and held that,

“With due respect, I find myself unable to agree with that, especially in view of the fact that the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v.Union of India (Writ Petition (Criminal) no.194 of 2017, decided on 27.09.2018), has struck down Section 497 of the IPC as being has been unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, (the said provision being one providing punishment for adultery).”

In the present case, a protection plea was filed by a live-in couple. They sought a direction upon the official respondents, not to harass them at the instance of respondent no.4 (wife of the petitioner Man) to 6.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, petitioner no.2 and respondent no.4 having earlier been married and petitioner no.2 had filed a divorce petition, which was however dismissed, upon which an appeal was filed by him before this court which is still pending.

“In an order passed in that appeal on 30.09.2008 (copy Annexure P-4), it was observed by this court that there are no chances of reconciliation [(though that possibly may have been only the contention made by counsel appearing for the appellant (petitioner no.2 herein),” the counsel added.

He further submitted that, “the petitioners are in a live-in relationship with each other and are in apprehension of danger to their life and liberty at the hands of respondents no.4 to 6, with the SHO, Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana, harassing the petitioners at the instance of the said respondents.”

Taking into account the factual matrix of the present case the Bench noted, without obtaining a divorce, a spouse is not entitled to protection qua a relationship with another person and thereby stated that,

“prima facie at least at this stage, no offence would seem to have been committed by the petitioners, they being adults in a live-inrelationship with each other, whether or not any divorce petition is pending before this court, which of course it is in the present case.”

Subsequnrtly, the Bench issued notice to the State of Punjab in the matter and directed the SSP, Khanna, to ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioner is duly protected at the hands of respondents no.4 to 6, as also at the hands of the SHO.

“with obviously a very adverse view to be taken by this court in case the petitioners are again harassed by the SHO on account of any live-in-relationship that they have with each other.”
 

 

[Case title - Paramjit Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others]