Punjab & Haryana HC declines protection to married woman, live-in partner due to no divorce from her first marriage

Read Order: Simranjeet Kaur and another v. State of Haryana and others 

LE Staff

Chandigarh, August 23, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a woman and her live-in partner seeking protection as they apprehend a threat to their lives from family members, saying the duo had entered into an “unholy alliance” as the woman was already married to someone else and a child was born out of the wedlock. 

A Bench of Justice Sant Prakash also noted that except for the “bald allegations” that the petitioner’s family members are giving threat to the couple because of their live-in relationship, no supportive material has been placed on record by the petitioners. 

“… petitioner No.1 is already married with respondent No.7 and out of that wedlock a child was born. After some time of the marriage, petitioner No.1 fell in love with petitioner No.2 and now they are residing in live-in relationship. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not convince this Court that petitioner No.1 has got the legal divorce from respondent No.7. Thus, this Court feels no hesitation to say that petitioner No.1 has entered into an unholy alliance with petitioner No.2,” the Bench said.

The petitioner couple approached the High Court for issuance of directions to the authorities/police to protect their life and liberty from the hands of their family members, who are opposing their live-in relationship.

The plea said the family of the woman — petitioner no. 1 Simranjeet Kaur — got her married against her wishes in 2018 and a child was born out of the wedlock. It alleged that she was not happy with the marriage as her husband harassed her mentally and physically, due to which she left her matrimonial home. 

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that they have filed a representation dated 13.08.2021 to police seeking protection to their life and liberty from their family members but till date no action has been taken thereon. 

The High Court, however, said that the representation submitted by the petitioners does not contain the allegations against the private respondents (family members) as averred in the writ petition, much less the manner and mode of alleged threat extended to the petitioners.

The High Court thus dismissed their plea.