The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that live-in couples facing threats are entitled to protection even if one of them is already married to a different person [Yash Pal and Another vs State of Haryana and Others].

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said irrespective of the socio-moral effect of such live-in relationships, self autonomy in its various dynamic forms has been endowed upon the couples. 

“That when one of the live-in partners is married, thus upon tangible threats becoming purveyed to the live-in couple by any of their respective family members or by any moral vigilant, thus therebys the said live-in couple becoming entitled to claim protection, vis-a-vis their relationship becoming as such obstructed,” said the Court.

However, the Bench also said that if any of the partners in a live-in relationship has a minor child, the courts can direct the parent to take care of the child.

“Though, there are remedies under law wherebys the maintenance amounts can become adjudged vis-a-vis the minor children. However, that may not be sufficient to ensure the best nourishing of the personality of a minor child which would rather occur only when the father besides providing maintenance also gives fatherly love, and/or when the mother gives motherly love to the minor child. 

As such, the live-in couple, one of whom is a major, though may in the manner directed hereinafter seek protection but the granting of protection by Courts of law, thus as parens patriae of minor children, may be conditioned upon the well being, best care takings, and, nourishing of the personality of the minor child being undertaken to be purveyed by the parent concerned,” said the Court.

The Division Bench gave the ruling while answering a reference made by a single-judge in a protection matter. The reference was made after noticing contradictory judgments of single-judge Benches on the issue.

The following questions had been raised:

Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty by filling an appropriate petition, whether the Court is required to grant them protection, per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case?

If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?

While deciding the legal questions, the Court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court in which right to choice has been stated to be part of right to life under the Article 21 of Constitution. 

In context of the subject at hand, the Court also examined Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Shine vs. Union of India that decriminalized adultery in India.

Considering the landmark decisions of the top court, the High Court proceeded to hold that live-in couples are entitled to protection even when one of the partners may already be married.

However, to avoid the emergence of cases for protection of such live-in couples before writ courts, the Court also said some other mechanisms are also required to be devised.

In this regard, it observed that the police are already overburdened and even deployment of cops with married couples “would cause an ill-encumbrance upon the already overburdened” force.

Thus, the Court suggested the following,

Initially the couples can approach the District Legal Services Authority which can deploy paralegal volunteers or counselors to talk to the live-in couple as well as the persons threatening them.

The couples can also approach the State Human Rights Commission. 

Protection of couples when one of them is a minor

The High Court also considered whether a minor in a live-in relationship with an adult or minors in such a relationship can seek protection from courts of law.

It answered the question in negative as it noted that a minor belonging to any religion cannot enter into a contract. 

“If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom. Contrarily the freedom to make choices by the minors are ably fettered, by the statutes respectively nomenclatured as The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and, as nomenclatured as Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,” it reasoned. 

The Bench also said in case protection is granted in such cases, the  Court would be avoiding to perform its duty as a parens patriae towards the children.