Court emphasizes prerequisites for live-in relationships and societal impact in landmark judgment.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, dismissed the plea of a couple seeking protection to live together in a live-in relationship. The couple, Lisha and another petitioner, approached the court alleging harassment by certain respondents and sought legal protection under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The court highlighted that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to relationships that fail to meet societal and legal prerequisites for live-in relationships. Justice Moudgil underscored that merely living together for a few days does not form a basis for granting protection, as it could disturb the social fabric of society.
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal," establishing that for a live-in relationship to be recognized, the couple must present themselves to society as akin to spouses, be of legal age to marry, and remain unmarried. The court noted that these conditions were not met in the present case.
The petitioners argued that they were majors and intended to marry, but faced opposition from family members. However, the court determined that the petitioner's actions infringed upon their parents' right to dignity and honor, as protected under Article 21. The court reiterated the principle that while individual freedom and dignity are crucial, they must be exercised within the bounds of law.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in "National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India," Justice Moudgil emphasized the importance of human dignity and the democratic principle of respecting individual choices, but stressed that legal protections cannot be extended to relationships that lack legitimate societal and legal recognition.
The court's decision reflects an adherence to traditional societal values while recognizing the evolving nature of relationships in modern India. The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights with societal norms and legal frameworks.
Bottom Line:
Live-in relationship - Protection under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be granted to couples in live-in relationships unless certain prerequisites are fulfilled, including holding themselves out to society as spouses, being of legal age to marry, and being unmarried.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Lisha v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2924780
