LAST MONTH, the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied a live-in-couple’s plea seeking police protection from an alleged danger and harassment from the woman’s family. While the Court observed that under Article 21 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour, it contended that in India, with its deep cultural origins, a significant emphasis lies on morals and ethical reasoning.
In doing so, Justice Sandeep Moudgil, speaking for the Court, agreed to the shifting social dynamics – that live-in relationships (‘LIRs’) are increasingly being adopted by a section of Indian society as a ‘modern lifestyle’, but argued that it’s influenced by Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture, and that the LIR in question does not fulfil its legally recognised conditions. So, providing police protection in such circumstances, the Court added, could indirectly amount to judicial approval of an ‘illicit relationship’, and that such relationship can bring ‘bad name’ to family. This rationale, which involved extra-legal grounds, was given even though petitioners, who were currently living in LIR, claimed that they are major – being more than 18 years of age, unmarried, like and love each other, and wanted to get married.
On the other hand, earlier this year, the Punjab & Haryana Court itself, although through Justice Mandeep Pannu, in a similar plea filed by a live-in couple alleging threat from their family members, directed the police to examine the threat perception faced by them and take necessary steps to ensure their safety. It held that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be denied to consenting adults merely because they are in a LIR as such rights stand at the highest pedestal.
