Mere fact that boy, though major, has not attained marriageable age, would not deprive live-in couple of their fundamental right to protection of life: P&H HC

Read Order: Sapna and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 3, 2022:  While dealing with a plea seeking protection, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the mere fact that one of the ‘major or adult’ parties to a live-in relationship has not attained marriageable age, would not be a valid ground to deprive the party concerned of his/ her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.  

The Bench of Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill was dealing with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners (live-in couple) at the instance of the threats posed by their families. 

Both the petitioners were major, however, the second petitioner, though a major, did not attain marriageable age. It was the case of the petitioners that they informed their parents about their relationship; however the same was not approved. Citing danger to their lives, the petitioners submitted that they received threats from their respective families and they were living in a constant state of fear, and were, therefore, running from pillar to posts for the protection of their life and liberty.

In support of his case, the counsel representing the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Nandakumar and Anr. v. The State of Kerala and others, wherein it was held that even if the boy was not competent to enter into wedlock, they have the right to live together even outside wedlock and it was also mentioned that ‘live-in relationship’ is now recognized by the Legislature itself.

The core issue of law which arose for court’s consideration was whether the right to life and liberty of an adult male, who is a party to a live-in relationship, can be infringed upon by his family members or by the State on the ground that he has not attained marriageable age? 

Addressing the issue, the Court elaborated upon the “bounded duty” of the State to protect the constitutionally guaranteed right of life and liberty of every citizen and observed that Article 21 of the Constitution stipulates protection of life and liberty to every citizen and that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It is the bounden duty of the State as per the Constitutional obligations cast upon it to protect the life and liberty of every citizen, added the Bench.

Further, the Court answered the main issue by observing that mere fact that the second petitioner is not of marriageable age, would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India.

The petition was thus disposed of with a direction to the Police to decide the representation moved by the petitioners, in accordance with the law, and to grant protection to them if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.