Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a case wherein the issue arose that whether the partners in live-in relationship, where one of partner was already married, were entitled to protection, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur* and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ., stated that when one of the live-in partners was married, and upon tangible threats being purveyed to the live-in couple by any of their respective family members or a moral vigilant, such live-in couple would be entitled to claim protection.
The Court stated that if any of the partners in a live-in relationship had minor children, none of the partners was required to abandon his/her duty to provide optimum care and protection to the minor children. Even though, the maintenance amount could be given to the minor children, that might not be sufficient to ensure the best nourishing of the minor child’s personality, which would occur only when the father also provides fatherly love, and/or when the mother provides motherly love to the minor child.
Background
Since, in the present case, a common question of law was involved in all the petitions, hence they were taken up together for adjudication by the Court.
In CRWP-4660-2021, the petitioners have sought a direction to protect their life and liberty, from the respondents concerned. In this petition though Petitioner 1 was already married, he was living with Petitioner 2 in a live-in relationship and they wanted to perform marriage, after Petitioner 1 had obtained the divorce decree from his wife. Similarly, In CRWP-149-2024 also, the petitioners filed a petition seeking a direction upon the respondents concerned, to protect their life and liberty from the respondents.
Further, LPA No. 968 of 2021 was filed by the appellants seeking to quash the impugned order dated 31-8-2021 passed by this Court, whereby the petition filed by the appellants seeking protection to their life and liberty, was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the avalanche of social morality in live-in relationship also affected the socio moral fabric of society. To ensure the intactness of the social moral fabric of the society, it was observed in certain judgments that the live-in relationships, where one of the live-in partners was married did not muster well, considering the evident threats emanating from the members of their respective families.
The Court discussed the observations laid down in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, whereby it was highlighted that the privacy of an individual, was an essential aspect of dignity, and, that “dignity” had both an intrinsic and instrumental value. It was stated that the adultery might be a ground for any kind of civil wrong including dissolution of marriage, but to treat adultery as an offence would be tantamount to the State entering a private realm.
The Court stated that when one of the live-in partners was married, and upon tangible threats being purveyed to the live-in couple by any of their respective family members or a moral vigilant, such live-in couple would be entitled to claim protection. Further, the Court stated that irrespective of the social-moral effect of live-in relationships, even if one of the partners was married, if there were pre-emption of assaults of any nature, the protection was to be granted.
The Court stated that if any of the partners in a live-in relationship had minor children, none of the partners was required to abandon his/her duty to provide optimum care and protection to the minor children. Even though, the maintenance amount could be given to the minor children, that might not be sufficient to ensure the best nourishing of the minor child’s personality, which would occur only when the father also provides fatherly love, and/or when the mother provides motherly love to the minor child.
The Court stated that the well-being of the children born out of legitimate wed locks, who would be the sufferers of the live-in relationship, was also required to be addressed. Even though the directions in that regard could be passed by the courts of the competent jurisdiction, the moral obligation of the male partner in a live-in relationship was expected to discharge his moral duty as a father towards his minor children.
The Court stated that to avoid the emergence of a spate of litigations related to live relationships, a mechanism was required to be devised to grant them appropriate protection. The police agencies were already overburdened, and, in case of evident tangible threat, the deployment of police escorts with the married couples, would cause an ill-encumbrance upon the already overburdened force. Thus, the Court stated that-
a.) Initially, the couples should access the jurisdictional District Legal Services Authority Concerned, so that the para legal volunteers or counsellors were deployed to counsel the live in couple and the persons from where the threat emanated;
b.) The State Human Rights Commission could also be accessed by the live-in couples, to ease the threats emanating from the moral vigilantes or from the relatives of the live-in couples. However, the live-in couples must ensure that the optimum care was given to the minor children concerned.
The Court stated that the live-in couples might nor access the Courts, only after the above stated mechanisms was effectively deployed.
The Court stated that in cases where the live-in relationship was partnered only by the minors, they could not seek the protection from Courts of law, because a minor belonging to any religious denomination, was incompetent to contract. Thus, he/she had no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom. The Court stated that if the protection was provided to minor partners, who were in a live-in relationship where either one or both was a minor, the granting of the protection would run counter to well statutory cramping of minor’s discretions. Therefore, this Court would avoid performing its duty as a parens patriae towards the minors, rather ensure the welfare of the minor concerned.
The Court stated that it was solemn duty casted upon the Courts of law, to ensure that the minor child was required to be retrieved to his/her parents, and natural guardian. However, if there would be an imminent threat to the life of the minor, the Courts were required to take recourse of the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and directing the minor to stay comfortably at Children Home or at a Nari Niketan, till he/her attained majority.
Thus, the Court allowed CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024 and dismissed the LPA No. 968 of 2021.
[Yash Pal v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239, decided on 09-09-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sureshwar Thakur
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Amicus Curiae: P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Pawan Girdhar, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana; Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Neha Sharma, CGC for UOI; Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab; B.R.Rana, Advocate for J.S.Toor, APP for U.T., Chandigarh.
