The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently decided that live-in couples who face threats are eligible for protection, even if one partner is already married to someone else.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma stated that, regardless of the socio-moral implications of live-in relationships, couples are granted self-autonomy in its various dynamic forms.

“That when one of the live-in partners is married, thus upon tangible threats becoming purveyed to the live-in couple by any of their respective family members or by any moral vigilant, thus therebys the said live-in couple becoming entitled to claim protection, vis-a-vis their relationship becoming as such obstructed,” said the Court.

However, the Bench also noted that if either partner in a live-in relationship has a minor child, the courts may mandate that the parent take responsibility for the child's care.

The Division Bench delivered this ruling in response to a reference from a single judge in a protection matter. The reference was prompted by inconsistencies in judgments issued by different single-judge Benches on the issue.

The following questions were raised:

1. When two individuals living together seek protection for their life and liberty through a petition, is the Court obligated to grant them protection solely based on their request, without considering their marital status or other case-specific circumstances?

2. If the answer to the above is negative, under what circumstances can the Court deny them protection?

In addressing the legal questions, the Court referenced several Supreme Court decisions affirming that the right to choose is a component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court examined the Supreme Court's ruling in *Joseph Shine v. Union of India*, which decriminalized adultery in India, in relation to the subject matter.

“A more incisive reading of the above extracted paragraphs unfolds, that family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of an individual, and, that the right to exercise freedom is an inviolable right inhering in an individual,” the Division Bench said.

In light of landmark decisions by the Supreme Court, the High Court ruled that live-in couples are entitled to protection, even if one partner is already married. However, to prevent a surge of such protection cases before writ courts, the Court emphasized the need for additional mechanisms. It observed that the police are already overburdened and noted that deploying officers to assist married couples would further strain the already stretched resources of the force.

The Court suggested the following measures:

1. Couples seeking protection should first approach the District Legal Services Authority, which can deploy paralegal volunteers or counselors to engage with both the live-in couple and those threatening them.

2. Couples may also seek assistance from the State Human Rights Commission.

The High Court also deliberated on whether a minor involved in a live-in relationship with an adult, or minors in such relationships, can seek protection from the courts. It answered this question in the negative, noting that minors, regardless of their religion, are not legally permitted to enter into contracts.

Advocate PS Ahluwalia was amicus curiae in the case.

Additional Advocate General Pawan Girdhar represented the State of Haryana.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with advocate Neha Sharma represented the Union of India.

Additional Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi represented the State of Punjab.

Advocate BR Rana with Additional Public Prosecutor JS Toor represented the UT Chandigarh.