The married person in a live-in relationship facing threat must be given protection: Punjab & Haryana H.C.
Last Updated on September 11, 2024 by Shianjany Pradhan
Analysis
The bench, comprised of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma, referred to the judgement of Joseph Shine v. Union of India. In this judgement, the S.C. decriminalised adultery.
It was held that every person has bodily autonomy, and the assault on the live-in couple will be a casualty.
The court also held that if any persons in the relationship have a minor child, they should also recognise their duty to prove the optimum care and protection.
Even if there are remedies under the law to seek maintenance for the children, the same would not be sufficient because the same cannot be compared to the love of a mother or father.
The division bench referred to several judgements to highlight that the right to choice is a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as upheld by the S.C.
The division bench also laid down mechanisms so that the police are not overburdened with the task of protecting a couple of apprehending threats.
- The concerned district legal services authority must be approached so that the counsellors can be appointed to help out the couple.
- The state human rights commission can also be approached.
Conclusion
Punjab and Haryana H.C. have held that if the married person enters into a live-in relationship outside their wedlock, he is supposed to be given protection if they face a threat.
