“Merely the sweet will of the petitioners and the right to life and liberty granted to them under the Constitution of India cannot be a right in isolation and with every right, there comes a duty,” the Court said.
In the case of Balwinder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently declined to provide police protection to a live-in couple. This decision was based on the observation that one of the individuals involved in the live-in relationship was still legally married to another person.
Justice Alok Jain expressed reservations regarding the nature of the relationship, characterizing it as “illicit” and “promiscuous” because the woman in question had an existing marriage and a child from that union. Despite the woman’s claim of being subjected to domestic violence by her husband, the judge pointed out that she had not initiated divorce proceedings or taken any other legal action in response.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the request for protection for the woman and her live-in partner, citing the lack of specific evidence and the fact that the allegations of threats in the petition were vague.
“Merely the sweet will of the petitioners and the right to life and liberty granted to them under the Constitution of India cannot be a right in isolation and with every right, there comes a duty which is also to be adhered to,” Justice Jain added.
Previously, the couple had withdrawn a petition resembling their current one, in which they had requested protection from perceived threats to their safety and freedom.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that they had later sought assistance from the police for protection.
“The present petition is misleading and conceals the material facts, which admittedly is done to cover up the promiscuous relationship which petitioner No.1 (woman) has with petitioner No. 2,” the Court said.
Additionally, it was highlighted that the woman had not lodged any prior complaints against her husband, despite making allegations against him and his family in the protection request.
The Court remarked that the couple had cohabited for over four months, during which time the woman had not taken any steps to either initiate divorce proceedings against her husband or pursue legal action against him for the alleged abuse she had mentioned.
“She admittedly wanted to continue with both the relationships which is unknown to the cannons of social fabric, at least in this country,” said the Court while dismissing the petition.
Advocate Yogesh Kumar Aneja represented the petitioners. Deputy Advocate General PS Grewal represented the State.
In another similar case (Binder Kaur and anr v. State of Punjab), where the couple was in a live-in relationship despite subsisting marriage, Justice Jain had earlier rejected the petition seeking protection and imposed a cost of ₹ 2,500 on them
“One’s choice to live outside wedlock does not mean that married persons are free to live in live-in relationship with others during subsistence of marriage, as it would amount to transgressing the valid legal framework,” the judge had said in that order.
Source : https://www.barandbench.com/news/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-rejects-plea-protect-live-in-relationship-woman-married