Punjab & Haryana HC denies protection plea, citing bigamy concerns.
Last Updated on January 6, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant police protection to a live-in couple where one of the partners was already married and had children.
The court noted that allowing such an objection would encourage bigamy and interfere with the rights of the husband and the husband’s children. Single-Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to a dignified life, but it must be exercised within the limits of the law. “By allowing such petitions, we are encouraging miscreants and encouraging bigamy, which is an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. This also violates the basic rights of the husband and children to a dignified life according to Art. 21,” the court said. The court emphasized that the right to reputation is a universal right good against all.
“Article 21 puts fundamental rights on a higher pedestal and allowing such relationships undermines the sanctity of legal marriages and the rights associated with them,” the court added. Advocate Kulwinder Singh Lakhanpal appeared for the respondent. The Bench noted that certain legal and social conditions must be met to legitimize a partnership. Mere cohabitation is not enough to gain protection, the court noted, warning against orders that could inadvertently validate illicit relationships.
The court also emphasized the importance of preserving moral values and customs for a stable society. “Marriage, a sacred institution in India, has significant cultural and social value. While some parts of India may be adopting modern lifestyles like live-in relationships, they should not suppress the sanctity of marriage and social norms,” the Single-Bench said. The court accused the husband of dishonoring the family by running away and violating the parents’ right to a dignified and honorable life. “The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the dignity of family and community,” the Bench added. Referring to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Aneeta and others v. State of U.P. the court reiterated that a person married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot seek legal protection for an illicit relationship that is against the social norms and legal framework. The request, which the couple filed due to threats from relatives, was rejected.
The court concluded that providing protection in such cases would undermine the social fabric and sanctity of legal marital relations. “Given the above discussions and reading of the above, it is clear that in order for such a relationship to be associated with legitimate sanctity, it is necessary for these partners to fulfill certain conditions. Just because these two people live together for a few days, their a claim of live-in relationship under penalty of bald head may not be enough to conclude that they are in fact in a live-in relationship and ordering the police to give them protection may indirectly give our consent to such an illegal relationship and therefore cannot pass under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees liberty of life to all citizens, but that liberty must be within the bounds of law, and therefore this court does not consider it a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction,” the court said
