Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection to live-in couple even though man is married & his divorce petition is pending before Court

Read Order: Paramjit Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others

LE Staff

Chandigarh, September 9, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that protection should be provided to the petitioners(man and woman in live-in relationship) with the observation that prima facie at least at this stage, no offence would seem to have been committed by the petitioners, they being adults in a live-in relationship with each other, whether or not any divorce petition is pending before this court, which of course it is in the present case.

By this petition, filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the police officials not to harass them at the instance of the respondents.

The petitioners submitted that the second petitioner(man in live-in) and respondent wife having earlier been married, the man had filed a divorce petition, which was however dismissed, upon which an appeal was filed by him before this court which has been still pending.

In an order passed in that appeal it was observed by this court that there are no chances of reconciliation but that possibly may have been only the contention made by counsel appearing for the appellant man.

It was also submitted that the petitioners have been in a live-in relationship with each other and have been in apprehension of danger to their life and liberty at the hands of respondents, with the SHO, Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana, harassing the petitioners at the instance of the said respondents.

Later in the month of August, the petitioners had been directed (by a co-ordinate Bench) to address the arguments in terms of a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Aneeta and another v. State of U.P. And three others.

The petitioners had also submitted that in the said judgment it had been observed that without obtaining a divorce, a spouse is not entitled to protection qua a relationship with another person.

The Bench of Justice Amol Rrattan Singh was unable to agree with that, especially in view of the fact that the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v.Union of India, has struck down Section 497 of the IPC as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, (the said provision being one providing punishment for adultery).

Consequently,  the Bench directed that the SSP, shall ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is duly protected at the hands of respondents, as also at the hands of the SHO, with obviously a very adverse view to be taken by this court in case the petitioners are again harassed by the SHO on account of any live-in-relationship that they have with each other.