‘Live-in couples facing threats entitled to protection, even if one partner is married’
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that live-in couples facing threats to their life and liberty are entitled to protection, even if one of the partners is already married. The judgement was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma in the case of Yash Pal and Another vs State of Haryana and Others.
The court emphasised that the right to self-autonomy in its various dynamic forms, including the choice of partners, is a fundamental right. The judgement notes that live-in relationships, despite their socio-moral implications, are entitled to legal protection if such couples face tangible threats from family members or moral vigilantes. The court stated: “When one of the live-in partners is married, and upon tangible threats being conveyed to the couple by family members or any moral vigilant, they are entitled to claim protection, as their relationship is obstructed.”
The Division Bench acknowledged the potential socio-moral disapproval of live-in relationships, particularly where one of the partners is married. Nonetheless, it stressed that the individual’s right to choose their partner is protected under the right to life and liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court referred to past Supreme Court judgments, notably in Joseph Shine vs Union of India*, which decriminalised adultery, and other rulings that have reinforced the right to individual freedom and dignity. “Family, marriage, procreation, and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of an individual,” the Bench observed, affirming the necessity of protecting live-in couples facing threats. While upholding the right of live-in couples to protection, the court also addressed concerns related to minor children of such relationships. If one partner in the relationship has a minor child, the court highlighted the need for special attention to the child’s welfare. The Bench explained that while legal remedies exist for securing maintenance for minor children, financial support alone may not suffice for the child’s overall well-being.with agency inputs
