Punjab & Haryana HC dismisses Protection Plea; says Petition filed just to obtain seal of Court on so called live-in-relationship

Read Order: Kavita and another v. State of Haryana and others  

LE Staff

Chandigarh, October 12,2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents as the petitioners have been in live-in-relationship against the wishes of the private respondents.

Herein, the first petitioner,Kavita, is legally wedded wife of fourth respondent, Sunil Dutt, whereas the second petitioner, Angrez Singh, is legally wedded husband of sixth respondent, Lakhwinder Kaur.

According to the submissions made in the petition, both the petitioners have been in love with each other for the last many years and have developed some understanding and liking and for the last one month, they are in live-in-relationship and for this reason, the private respondents are annoyed with them.

It was further submitted that the first petitioner had filed a divorce petition but the divorce had not been granted so far.

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan opined that a perusal of the petition showed that neither any date has been given in the petition seeking divorce nor any date has been given in the application seeking grant of interim maintenance. There was also no case number mentioned on the said divorce petition. A perusal of this petition further showed that it was stated therein that the husband of first petitioner had deserted and neglected her by causing mental and physical cruelty.

It was noted by the Court that the averments made in the above mentioned divorce petition and the present petition were in sharp contrast to each other as in divorce petition, it was stated that the husband of first petitioner had deserted and neglected her, whereas in the present petition, it was stated that both the petitioners were loving each other for the last many years.

The Bench also observed that a perusal of the representation dated September 27,2012, addressed to Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, revealed that no such persons had been referred to in the entire representation and nothing had been stated as to from whom, the petitioners were apprehending threat.

The Bench sternly mentioned that both the petitioners, without seeking divorce from their respective spouses, have been living a lustful and adulterous life with each other and had relied upon a totally vague document wherein it was nowhere stated that from whom, they were apprehending threat to their life and liberty.

According to the Bench, it was worth noticing that in the absence of any allegation by not naming anyone in the representation, it could not be presumed that both the petitioners had any apprehension from their own spouses and this petition had been filed just to obtain a seal of this Court on their so called live-in relationship.

On the face of it, the representation appeared to be a fake document as no receipt or diary number of the office of Superintendent of Police, Kaithal was given or attached, noted the Bench.