Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Protection Plea Of Live-In Couple Where One Of Them Was Married With Kids, Says It Would "Promote Bigamy"
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant protection to a live-in couple–wherein one of them was already married and had children, observing that allowing the plea in this instance will encourage the wrong doer and promote bigamy, violating the rights of the spouse and children of one of the petitioner's. Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "Under Article 21 of the Indian...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant protection to a live-in couple–wherein one of them was already married and had children, observing that allowing the plea in this instance will encourage the wrong doer and promote bigamy, violating the rights of the spouse and children of one of the petitioner's.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution each and every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour, therefore, by allowing such type of petitions we are encouraging the wrongdoers and somewhere promoting the practice of bigamy which is otherwise an offence under Section 494 IPC, further violating the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity."
The Court added that every person has a right to have his reputation preserved. It is a jus in rem, a right good against all in the world. Article 21 of the Constitution of India places Fundamental Rights on a much higher pedestal.
"In view of the above discussions and reading of the above clearly indicates that to attach legitimate sanctity to such a relation, certain conditions are required to be fulfilled by such partners. Merely because the two persons are living together for few days, their claim of live-in relationship based upon bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in live-in-relationship and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship, and, therefore, the orders cannot be passed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of life to all citizens, but such freedom has to be within the ambit of law," the court underscored.
Run away Couple Bringing Bad Names, Violating Rights Of Parents To Live With Dignity
The Court observed further that the concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners by running away from their parental home is not only bringing bad name to the family but also is violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour.
Moral Values, Customs Must Be Preserved For Stable Community
The bench said that in our diverse country, marriage as social tie is one the essential of Indian society and regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community.
India Adopting Western Culture
The judge also highlighted that "marriage is a holy relationship" with legal consequences and great social esteem.
"Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture."
A portion of India appears to have adopted Modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship, it added.
The protection plea was filed by a live couple wherein one of them was already married and had children. The couple was apprehending threat from their relatives.
The Court referred to Allahabad High Court's decision in Smt. Aneeta and Another v State of U.P. and Others to underscore that none law abiding citizen who is already married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can seek protection of this Court for illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of social fabric.
Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Punjab & Ors
Counsel for petitioners: Advocate Mr. Kulwinder Singh Lakhanpal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 433