1. Home
2. Legal News
3. Live-in relationships are not prohibited by law: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Live-in relationships are not prohibited by law: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Dated: May 20, 2021

                                                                                                                                                             -by Megha Bhatia

The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a significant decision on Tuesday i.e. May 18th 2021, that an individual has the right to formalize the relationship with his/her partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in relationship.

This order comes a week after two Punjab & Haryana High Court benches disapproved of live-in relationships, this third bench extended immunity to a couple who had entered into one (Pardeep Singh and Anr v. State of Haryana).

The petitioners approached the High Court after receiving no response from the police despite filing a complaint on May 9th, 2021.

In a case involving a live-in-relationship couple who are both major and have agreed to enter into such a relationship because they are certain of their feelings for each other, the Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal observed as such.

Significantly, the Court observed, “The Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek the protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation exists where the couple has entered into a live-in-relationship. The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference?”

The Court went on to say that there was no exception because the pair in both cases feared for the protection from family, not society, and therefore they were entitled to the same relief.

The Court also stated that the right to life and liberty is enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and that this right entails an individual’s right to maximum growth of his or her capacity in compliance with his or her wishes, and that for this reason, he or she is free to choose a spouse of his or her choosing.

The Court also observed that the notion of live-in relationships originated in western countries and was initially accepted in metropolitan cities, owing to people’s belief that formalizing a relationship by marriage was not needed for full fulfilment.

The Court stated that education played a significant role in the advancement of this idea, and that the concept has gradually spread to small towns and villages, as shown by this petition. This indicates that mainstream recognition of live-in relationships is growing.

Importantly, the Court remarked, “In law, such a relationship is not prohibited nor does it amount to commission of any offence and thus, in my considered view such persons are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country. The law postulates that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and must be protected irrespective of individual views.”

Finally, recalling that no resident of a country ruled by the Rule of Law should be allowed to take the law into his own hands, the Court dismissed the petition with a directive to respondent No. 2 to consider their representation and offer adequate defence if possible.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court made this significant observation after refusing to offer protection to a live-in couple who said they had been threatened by the girl’s family after their elopement, stating that “if such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed.”

In its order, Justice Anil Kshetarpal’s bench noted, “Petitioner no.1 (Girl) is barely 18 years old whereas petitioner no.2 (Boy) is 21 years old. They claim to be residing together in a live-in relationship and claim protection of their life and liberty from the relatives of petitioner no.1 (Girl).”

Singh and Kumari were living together in Tarn Taran district, according to petitioners’ lawyer J S Thakur. Their love was frowned upon by the woman’s parents in Ludhiana. The couple was unable to marry because Kumari’s documents, which included information about her age, were in the hands of her relatives, according to Thakur.

In a terse order, Justice HS Madaan charged the couple, for coming to court, to get a stamp of approval for their “morally and socially unacceptable” relationship.

“As a matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking seal of approval on their live-in-relationship, which is morally and socially not acceptable and no protection order in the petition can be passed.”

Supreme Court’s past view on this

In the past, the Supreme Court has taken a different stance on this subject. 

In May 2018, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that an adult couple had the right to live together even though they were not married. It had further made this clear when it said that a 20-year-old Kerala woman could chose who she wanted to live with after her marriage was annulled.

The Supreme Court ruled that live-in marriages were now even recognised by the legislature, and that they were covered by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. 

The Supreme Court ruled in another landmark case S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal that live-in marriages are acceptable and that the act of two people living together cannot be rendered immoral or unlawful. While it is clear that the majority of our population believes that sexual intercourse can only occur between married couples, it also stated that when adults voluntarily partake in sexual relations outside of the marriage environment, there is no criminal offence, with the exception of adultery as specified under Section 497 IPC.

The Supreme Court has cited its ruling in Lata Singh vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, “The judgement may be viewed as unethical, a live-in relationship between two consenting adults does not constitute an offense, with the apparent exception of adultery. A major girl has the freedom to marry or “live with” whomever she wants.”

Criminal law cannot be used to unduly mess with the sphere of personal autonomy and social morality is fundamentally subjective. According to the court, morality and crime are not mutually exclusive. 

Indra Sarma vs V K V Sarma, the Supreme Court of India said in 2013, “A live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, though it is socially unacceptable in this world.”

It went on to say that a long-term relationship as a concubine, though not of the form of a marriage, may at times merit security because the woman may not be financially independent.