Married Persons' Entry Into Live-In Relationship 'Illicit': Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Police Protection, Imposes Cost

The Punjab & Haryana High Court 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. 

"One's choice to live outside wedlock does not mean that married persons are free to live in live-in-relationship with others during subsistence of marriage, as it would amount to transgressing the valid legal framework. Filing of this writ petition appears to be a device adopted to have a seal and signature of this Court on the illegal act of the petitioners violating the norms of pious institution of marriage." 

Interestingly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had recently passed an order on almost identical lines.

The observation came in a plea filed by the couple seeking police protection from their one of their spouses. The couple also had children from their respective spouses.

Justice Jain remarked that the threat perception narrated in the petition seemed 'vague and evasive' and it appeared as though the man's wife caught him in a 'promiscuous relationship' which could not be considered a threat.

As such, the petition was found to be an abuse of process of law to cover up the petitioners' 'illicit relationship' on being caught and there was no threat perception as such. 

"If there was any real grievance of the couple against the private respondents, who were allegedly interfering in their live-in relationship or if there was a threat to their life, they were at liberty to lodge an FIR under Section 154 of CrPC with the police or move an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before the competent Court or file a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. However, neither of the said remedy was availed by the petitioners and only a fictitious representation... was moved to SSP, Ferozepur, Punjab."

Consequently, stating that the petition was devoid of any merit, the Court dismissed it with a cost of Rs. 2,500.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 173

Appearance: Raminder Singh Dhaliwal for the petitioners; P.S Grewal, DAG, Punjab