Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kavita Devi And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 June, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080686
CRWP-6066-2024 2024:PHHC:080686 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-6066-2024
Date of Decision:28.06.2024
KAVITA DEVI AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Safia Gupta, AAG, Haryana.
***
RITU TAGORE, J.(ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction to
protect life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of private
respondents No.4 to 9, who are husband and the relatives of petitioner No.1.
2. According to the petitioners, the marriage of the petitioner
No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.8 on 02.03.2004 and one
daughter was born from the wedlock, who is being looked after by
petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that presently petitioner No.1 is in
live-in relationship with petitioner No.2. It is stated that both the petitioners
fell in love with each other and have decided to stay together in live-in
relationship, which is opposed by the private respondents.
3. It is stated that petitioners are major and have right to choose to
live in the manner they like. It is claimed that private respondents No.4 to
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080686
9 are continuously harassing and threatening the petitioners.
4. Petitioners claim to have submitted a representation
(Annexure P-3) dated 22.06.2024 in this regard to the Superintendent of
Police, Jind, on which no decision has been taken. Learned counsel for the
petitioners restricts his prayer to the effect of deciding the representation of
the petitioners.
5. Heard.
6. Record perused.
7. The petitioners have placed on record copies of their Aadhar
Cards (Annexures P-1 and P-2) as proof of their age, from the same it is
made out that both the petitioners are major.
8. Herein, the petitioners, have taken a decision to reside together
without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the Courts to judge them on
their decision. In S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600, it has
been held that live-in relationship is permissible and the act of two adults
living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful, while further
holding that the issue of morality and criminality are not co-extensive.
9. Without expressing any opinion as to the sanctity to their live-
in relationship, where the safety of the petitioners is the first and foremost
concern, at this stage, this petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Jind to decide the representation
seeking protection of life and liberty of petitioners, be looked into and
contents thereof be duly verified and if necessary, requisite steps be taken,
strictly in accordance with law for grant of protection of life and liberty to
the petitioners. Petitioners are directed to appear before respondent No.2
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080686
within a period of one week from today.
10. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for
the purpose of deciding the present petition. This order shall have no affect
on civil/criminal proceedings, if any, pending/instituted against the
petitioners.
11. It is further made clear that if petitioners are otherwise found to
be involved in any other case, in such an eventuality, this order shall not
preclude the competent authority from taking appropriate action against the
petitioners, that law permits.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
28.06.2024
Gaurav Sorot
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080686
6. Herein, the petitioners, have taken a decision to reside together
without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the Courts to judge them on
their decision. In S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600, it has
been held that live-in-relationship is permissible and the act of two adults
living together cannot considered illegal or unlawful, while further holding
that the issue of morality and criminality are not co-extensive. Further in a
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India Nandakumar and another
Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 899, it has been
held that, "we need not go into this aspect in detail. For our purposes, it is
sufficient to note that both appellant No.1 and Thushara are major. Even if
they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is
disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would
not be out of place to mention that 'live-in relationship' is now recognized
by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005".
7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India envisages that no
person shall be deprived of his/her right to freedom and personal liberty
except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The State is
duty bound to protect the life and liebrty of its citizen. In this regard
reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP and another JT 2006 (6) SC 173.
8. If the given allegations of threat to the lives of petitioners turn
out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. In view of above, without
going into the merits of the case and expressing any opinion as to the
sanctity of their live-in-relationship because the safety of the petitioners is
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080686
the foremost concern at this stage, this petition is hereby disposed of with
direction to respondent No.2
5 of 5
