IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 124 Laxmi and another State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Satish K. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. (through hybrid mode) *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. The present petiti Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. protect life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondent are in a ‘live-in’ against the wishes of their family members. 2. Learned counsel the petition, to state that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 their Aadhar cards are appended as Annexures P petitioners are in a threats to them 3. Notice of motion. 4. At the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent representation filed on behalf of the petitioners. 5. The issue as to whether marriage is a must for providing protection to a couple in a 'live ensured under Arti different Benches of this Court in and another vs. State of Haryana and others 8081-2021 titled as others decided on 26.08.2021 and also by the Division Bench in IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP- Date of decision: 18.06.2025 Laxmi and another Versus Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Satish K. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. (through hybrid mode) *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. protect life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondent in’ against the wishes of their family members. Learned counsel for the petitioners refer tion, to state that both the petitioners are major and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are 23.05.2004 and 01.01.1995 their Aadhar cards are appended as Annexures P petitioners are in a 'live-in relationship', on account of threats to them. Notice of motion. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab notice on behalf of respondent-State and representation filed on behalf of the petitioners. The issue as to whether marriage is a must for providing protection to a couple in a 'live-in relationship', keeping in view the fundamental rights ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been considered by the different Benches of this Court in CRWP-4521 and another vs. State of Haryana and others titled as Goutam Kumar and another v decided on 26.08.2021 and also by the Division Bench in IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -6455-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.06.2025 ..Petitioners ..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Satish K. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. on has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 protect life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondent as they in’ against the wishes of their family members. for the petitioners refers to the averments made in both the petitioners are major and the date of births and 01.01.1995 respectively. The copies of their Aadhar cards are appended as Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. The in relationship', on account of respondent No.4 is giving Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab and has no objection in deciding the representation filed on behalf of the petitioners. The issue as to whether marriage is a must for providing protection in relationship', keeping in view the fundamental rights cle 21 of the Constitution of India, has been considered by the 4521-2021 titled as Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 18.05.2021; CRWP Goutam Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab and decided on 26.08.2021 and also by the Division Bench in LPA 769-2021 226 of the 2 and 3 to as they made in date of births of . The copies of The giving Mr. The copies of The giving Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab, has no objection in deciding the The issue as to whether marriage is a must for providing protection in relationship', keeping in view the fundamental rights cle 21 of the Constitution of India, has been considered by the Pardeep Singh CRWP- s. State of Punjab and 2021 ASHOK KUMAR 2025.06.18 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6455-2025 (O&M) -2- titled as Ishrat Bano and another vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 03.09.2021 and in LPA 1678-2014 titled as Rajwinder Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 09.10.2014. 6. This Court in Pardeep Singh's case (supra) while granting protection to the petitioners therein, where they were residing in a live-in relationship, had held as under: “The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the land. Right to life and liberty is enshrined therein and is treated as a basic feature. The said right includes the right of an individual to full development of his/her potential in accordance with his/her choice and wish and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to choose a partner of his/her choice. The individual also has the right to formalize the relationship with the partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship. The concept of live-in-relationships has crept into our society from western nations and initially, found acceptance in the metropolitan cities, probably because, individuals felt that formalization of a relationship through marriage was not necessary for complete fulfillment. Education played a great role in development of this concept. Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and villages also as is evident from this petition. This shows that social acceptance for live-in-relationships is on the increase. In law, such a relationship is not prohibited nor does it amount to commission of any offence and thus, in my considered view such persons are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country. The law postulates that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and must be protected irrespective of individual views. Let us examine the issue from another view-point. The Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation exits where the couple has entered into a live-in- relationship. The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situations and not from the society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Law. The petition is accordingly, disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 9.5.2021 (Annexure P3) and to provide appropriate protection, if found necessary. It shall be ensured that no harm comes either to the lives or liberty of the petitioners.” ASHOK KUMAR 2025.06.18 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6455-2025 (O&M) -3- 7. In Rajwinder Kaur's case (supra), the Division Bench has held as under:- “We have no reason to doubt that the fundamental right to life and liberty is so sacrosanct and stands at such a high pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of an incident like solemnization of a valid marriage between the parties. While the appellants might be required to satisfy an appropriate forum regarding the validity of their marriage but even in the absence of such validation, the State is obligated to protect their life and liberty. We, thus, modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of this appeal with a direction to the respondent-police-authorities to ensure that no harm is caused by anyone to the life and liberty of the appellants. The police-authorities shall, however, verify the age of the appellants and if any further remedial action is required to be taken on such verification, the same shall be taken forthwith.” 8. Thus, in view of the law laid down in Pardeep Singh's case (supra) and Rajwinder Kaur's case(supra), this Court is of the view that even in case the petitioners are in a “Live-in Relationship”, protection qua the life and liberty of the petitioners being sacrosanct stands at the highest pedestal. Thus, they are entitled to be granted protection of life and liberty. 9. Resultantly, in view of the above prayer made by the petitioners and without commenting upon the aspect of the nature of their relationship or expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the representation dated 05.06.2025(Annexure P-3) and if any threat perception is found, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 10. It is however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities to proceed against the petitioners, in case, they are found involved in any other criminal proceedings, instituted/pending against them if there is some evidence that surfaces regarding their involvement in a cognizable offence, for which they may be required by the investigating agency. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) 18.06.2025 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.06.18 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document