The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that extending legal protection to married individuals seeking to enter into live-in relationships with their partners would effectively endorse "wrongdoing" and encourage the practice of bigamy.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil's bench also noted that couples who leave their parental homes not only tarnish their families' reputations but also infringe upon their parents' right to live with dignity and respect.

This ruling followed several petitions, including one from a 40-year-old woman and a 44-year-old man, seeking protection due to perceived threats from their families.

Despite the fact that the man is married and both individuals have children, the couple continues to live together. The woman has divorced her husband. The court observed that the petitioners were fully aware of their prior marriages and thus could not lawfully enter into a live-in relationship.

"Further, the petitioner no. 2 (the man) has not taken divorce from his earlier wife. All live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage," the court observed.

The court stated that if it were to recognize the relationship between the petitioners as akin to marriage, it would be unjust to the man's wife and children. It emphasized that marriage carries a public significance and entails responsibilities beyond the private sphere.

"The institutions of marriage and family are important social institutions that provide for the security and bear an important role in the rearing of children. The celebration of a marriage gives rise to moral and legal obligations, particularly the reciprocal duty of support placed upon spouses and their joint responsibility for supporting and raising children born out of the wedlock," it observed.

"Under Article 21 of the Constitution, each and every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour, therefore by allowing such type of petitions, we are encouraging the wrongdoers and somewhere, promoting the practice of bigamy, which is otherwise an offence under section 494, IPC, further violating the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity.

"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 homes, are not only bringing a bad name to the families but also violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour," the court said.

The court further said, "Merely because two persons are living together for a few days, their claim of live-in relationship based upon a bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in a live-in-relationship, and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship." "In our diverse country, marriage as a social tie is ... essential in Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community," it added.

"However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, live-in relationships," the court said.