Rajasthan High Court Asks Police To Consider Protection Plea By Already Married Live-In Partners
Rajasthan High Court has directed the local Police to consider providing necessary protection to a man and woman living in a live-in relationship outside their respective wedlocks.The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed by a mother of four and a father of one who were living together in a relationship for past few days, without getting any divorce from their...
Rajasthan High Court has directed the local Police to consider providing necessary protection to a man and woman living in a live-in relationship outside their respective wedlocks.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed by a mother of four and a father of one who were living together in a relationship for past few days, without getting any divorce from their respective spouses, and were apprehending threat to their lives from their relatives.
The bench referred to Kanti and another Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2023) where while dealing with similar facts as a puisne Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Monga had ruled that the key issue was not the legality of petitioners' relationship but whether they were entitled to protection in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was ruled that even though the relationship of the couple was prima facie adulterous in nature, in a nation governed by Rule of Law, fundamental right under Article 21 stood on a much higher pedestal and had to be protected irrespective of the legitimacy of relationship between the parties.
Interestingly, Kanti (supra) judgment contrasts with another judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in the same year- Binder Kaur and and. v. State of Punjab & Ors- where (2023), which turned down such petition filed by a couple living together out of their respective wedlocks. While terming it a “classic case of illicit relationship" and the petition to be an "abuse of process of law", the Court also imposed a fine on the couple and held that married individuals cannot not enter live-in relationships with others during the subsistence of their marriage as that would amounted to transgressing the valid legal framework.
Andhra Pradesh High Court also in Devi Bulli Venkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023) had rejected a habeas corpus petition filed by a married man for the production of a woman with whom he was living, who was taken away by her father. The Court dismissed the petition and opined the petition to be a scheme to legitimize illegal actions by getting a seal of approval from the Court. The Court held that recognition of a couple's choice to live together without solemnization of marriage did not entitled married people to live with others during the subsistence of their marriage.
Title: Maya & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 229