Married Individuals Entering Live-In Relationship Can't Be Denied Protection, Right To Life Sacrosanct: Punjab & Haryana HC Issues Guidelines To Police

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that married individuals entering into live-in relationship cannot be denied protection, irrespective of the Police's view about morality of such relationships.

Justice Arun Monga observed that right to human life is to be treated on highest pedestal and cannot be taken away, except in accordance with law, irrespective of the nature of the relationship.

The bench thus issued guidelines to "sensitize the police officials who remain mute after receiving representations from the fearful couples" seeking protection.

"It seems that police officers/officials’ subjective view of the moral and ethical considerations of a couple's live-in relationship over-shadow and prevail over the duty to protect the citizens’ life leading to inaction on their part. That in turn unnecessarily drives the affected person/s to the Court for seeking relief."

(i). Legality of relationship vs. Fundamental Rights:

Striking a balance between the legality of a couple's live-in relationship and their entitlement to protection under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, is essential.

(ii). Safeguarding Against Family Threats:

 Addressing a couple's safety concerns, not from society or the State but from their own family members, is crucial. The significance of familial pressures and potential harm in such situations should not be underestimated, given the past statistics of honor killings.

(iii). Upholding the Rule of Law:

 In a country governed by the Rule of Law, individuals, regardless of their status, must refrain from taking matters into their own hands.

(iv). Safeguarding Fundamental Rights:

Regardless of the nature or legitimacy of a relationship, constitutional fundamental rights, such as the right to life and personal liberty is sacrosanct, must be protected.

(v). The State's Responsibility:

The State's duty to protect its citizens is a fundamental principle of governance.

The Court further concluded that, "a balance has to be struck between ethical and legal questions about personal choices, fundamental rights, familial pressures and the role of the State. Life and individual rights in cases of live-in relationships, in deserving cases, must be protected from potential harm threatened by family members. Same shall ensure and reaffirm the importance of upholding the Rule of Law and the fundamental principles of democratic governance."

These observations came in response to the plea filed by a live in couple who were already married with their respective partners and seeking protection in fear of honour killing from the woman's husband and family members.

It was alleged that a representation was filed before the police in August seeking to safeguard their life and liberty, but no action was being taken on the same.

Considering the petition, the Court noted that the key issue at hand is not the legality of the petitioners' relationship, qua which they may be liable for civil as well as criminal consequences in accordance with law, but whether they are entitled to protection of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"Must their right to live be upheld, irrespective of their self-proclaimed live in relationship, which on the face of it appears to be adulterous?" the bench wondered.

Court said appropriate laws exist for dealing with cases arising out of defiance of the matrimonial laws and the police force being the protective arm of the State is under a duty to protect the citizens’ life. Accordingly, petitioners herein cannot also be deprived of their said fundamental right, Court held.

It directed that the Superintendent of Police, Nuh to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, "proceed in accordance with law and, if deemed fit, provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty."

While disposing of the plea, the Court directed Registry to circulate copy of the instant order to the Secretaries, Home Department and the Directors Generals of Police of Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh for onward circulation to every SHO of the police stations in their respective States.

It is pertinent to note that the High Court had recently imposed a fine of Rs. 2,500 on already married individuals entering into a live-in relationship who had approached the court seeking police protection.

Justice Alok Jain called it a 'classic case of an illicit relationship' while reiterating that married individuals cannot enter live-in relationships with others during the subsistence of their marriage.

Appearance: Rosi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Svaneel Jaswal, Additional A.G., Haryana.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 197