'Brings Bad Name To Family...': High Court Denies Protection To Live-In Couple, Cites Parents' Right To Dignity

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to grant police protection to a couple claiming to be in a live-in relationship, observing that while such arrangements may be increasingly accepted by a section of society, courts must also take into account their impact on family dignity and prevailing social norms.Dismissing the petition filed by a Punjab-based couple, the High Court noted that merely living together for a brief period does not automatically constitute a legally recognised live-in relationship. In its June 5 order, the court observed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity. It said that by running away from their parental homes, the petitioners are not only

bringing disrepute to their families but are also violating their parents' right to live with dignity and honour."The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners, by running away from their parental home, are not only bringing bad name to the family but also are violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour," the court said.The High Court further observed that India's legal and social structure is rooted in diverse traditions, customs and beliefs, where marriage continues to enjoy significant legal and societal recognition. Describing marriage as a "holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem", the court said Indian society has historically placed considerable importance on moral values.The also court acknowledged that live-in relationships have been adopted by some sections of society as part of changing social lifestyles.Referring to Article 21, the court reiterated that every individual has the right to live with peace, dignity and honour, adding that reputation forms an integral part of personal liberty. The judgment also cited earlier rulings that denied protection to couples in similar circumstances, observing that indiscriminately granting such relief could disturb the existing social fabric.Hearing the petitioners' submission, the court took note of the fact that the male partner had not yet attained the legal age for marriage and that the couple intended to marry once he became eligible.As per the petition, both individuals were above 18 years of age and were in a consensual relationship. However, the couple alleged that the woman's family was pressuring her to end the relationship and threatening to implicate the man in a false criminal case.In view of the circumstances the couple sought police protection, however, after considering the facts of the case, the High Court held that no case for granting police protection was made out and dismissed the plea.