Married Persons Entering In Live-In Relationships Bring Bad Name, Violate Parents' Right To Dignity: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant protection to the already married live-in  couples apprehending threat from their family members, observing that married couples who run away from their parental homes to be in live-in relationships are bringing a "bad name" to their parents and also violate the right of the parents to live with dignity.

Adding that India is adopting western culture of live-in relationship, the Court said, if it holds that the relationship between the petitioners is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, that "will be doing an injustice to the wife and children who opposed that relationship."

While refusing protection to "live-in relationship" couples, Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed, "A live-in-relationship between a married man and a woman or a married woman with a man is not akin to marriage, as it amounts to adultery and bigamy, which is unlawful. Therefore, such woman are not entitled to any protection under the DV Act."

The Court opined, that "the petitioners being fully aware of the fact that the both of them being married earlier could not have entered into a live-in relationship. Further the petitioner no. 2 has not taken divorce from his earlier wife. All live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. Petitioners relationships, therefore, not a relationship in the nature of marriage because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than in the nature of marriage and the petitioner no. 1 status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of domestic relationship under [Section 2(f) of the DV Act."

Referring to the petitioners who were already married, the Court said, "If this Court holds that the relationship between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the wife and children who opposed that relationship."

The Court added, "Entering into marriage therefore is to enter into a relationship that has public significance as well. The institutions of marriage and the family are important social institutions that provide for the security and bear an important role in the rearing of children The celebration of a marriage gives rise to moral and legal obligation, particularly the reciprocal duty of support placed upon spouses and their joint responsibility for supporting and raising children born out of the wedlock."

Justice Moudgil further observed that, 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 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," the Court added.

The Court highlighted that, 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.

These observations came in response to the protection pleas of three couples, stated to be in the "live-in relationship".

In one of the cases, a 40-year-old woman was in a live-in relationship with a 44-year-old man.The Court noted, both the man and woman were already married to other persons and had children. While the woman had taken divorce from her husband in 2013, the man still has a wife and also a child from that marriage, it noted further.

While rejecting the petitions, the Court said, "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."

Justice Moudgil also relied on cantena of judgements from different High Courts to underscore that Courts had, "refused to grant the protection to the couples living in live-in-relationship on the ground that if such protection as claimed, is granted the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed."

In the light of the above, the Court rejected to grant the relief of protection. However, it added that, "if the petitioners moves the police authorities showing that they have genuine grievance or threat to their life, the police authority may do the needful after verification of all the facts as narrated by them in their representation."

Advocates Rahi Mehra, Vikram Singh Narwal and Suman Kumari appeared for the petitioners.

Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 173