It added that even if the petitioners are living in a live-in relationship, they are entitled to the protection of life and liberty.

Justice Vikas Bahl pronounced judgment on June 25.

Live-in relationship, below marrigable age

The petitioners, one born in October 2006 and the other born in January 2007, submitted that although one of then are major, not of marriageable age, they were living in a “live-in relationship”.

It was the case of the petitioners that they are unmarried and are living in a “live-in relationship” out of their free will and without any pressure. It is further submitted that the petitioners have given a detailed representation on June 26 to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, as they are apprehending harm to their life and liberty and have, thus, sought protection.

Counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Sandeep Saini, relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jashanpreet Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others. In that case, although the girl was about 15 years and 8 months old and the boy was about 19 years and 3 months old, the Coordinate Bench, after considering the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granted protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners.

Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment dated May 18, 2021, passed by a coordinate bench of this court titled Pardeep Singh and another v State of Haryana and others, in which protection has been granted in a case where the petitioners were living in a live-in relationship.

Necessary directions for their protection: Order

• In Pardeep Singh’s case, a coordinate bench of this court has held that 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.
• At any rate, whenever this court, prima facie, is satisfied that on account of some relatives/persons being unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, then in such circumstances, the courts are required to pass necessary directions for their protection.
• Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and without commenting upon the legality of the relationship or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition.
• Direction to the Superintendent of Police to consider the representation and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners, and after considering the same, shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Ruling on live-in couples

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted protection to a live-in couple, both of whom are married to their respective spouses and have children from their existing marriages, observing that every major has the “right to live” with a person of his or her choice.

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal was hearing a petition filed by the couple seeking directions to the authorities to protect their life and liberty from private individuals.

“Every person, more so a major, has the right to live his/her life with a person of his/ her choice, subject to the laws as applicable. Whenever this court, prima facie, is satisfied that on account of some relatives/ persons being unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners, could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, then in such circumstances, the courts are required to pass necessary directions for their protection,” the May 22 order read.