Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 June, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080689
CRWP-6086-2024 :1: 2024:PHHC:080689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111 CRWP-6086-2024
Date of Decision: 28.06.2024
RAJBIR KAUR AND ANOTHER
... Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Ms. Dolli Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Dr. Dharminder Singh Lamba, DAG, Punjab.
*****
RITU TAGORE, J.(Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of necessary direction to
respondents No.1 to 3 to protect life and liberty of the petitioners at
the hands of respondent No.4.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the
petitioners are in live-in-relationship. Petitioner No.1 previously
married to Davinder Singh in the year 2018 and one child born out of
the wedlock is currently residing with his father. On account of
matrimonial disputes and physical violence committed by the
husband of petitioner No.1, she started living separately from her
husband since 2021, and is residing with her father. Petitioner No.2
was married to Navdeep Kaur in the year 2023. No child was born out
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080689
CRWP-6086-2024 :2: 2024:PHHC:080689
of the said wedlock. Petitioner No.2 and his wife decided to live
separately and entered into a written settlement on 12.04.2024.
Copies of Aadhaar card of both the petitioners are attached as
Annexures P-1 and P-2.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid private
respondent No.4 has threatened to cause harm to both the petitioners
and in this regard, representation dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-4)
has been given to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar
Rural, Punjab but till date no action has been taken by the concerned
authority in this regard.
4. Copies of Aadhaar card of both the petitioners are
attached as Annexures P-1 and P-2 relied upon by the petitioners as
proof of their age, prima facie suggest that both the petitioners are
major.
5. 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080689
CRWP-6086-2024 :3: 2024:PHHC:080689
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".
6. 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.
7. 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 the the foremost concern at this
stage, this petition is hereby disposed of with direction to respondent
No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar Rural, Punjab to
consider representation dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-4) and to take
remedial measures to protect life and liberty of petitioners if so
warranted, in accordance with law.
8. It is further made clear that if the petitioners are
otherwise found to be involved in any other case, in such an
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080689
CRWP-6086-2024 :4: 2024:PHHC:080689
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
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
