[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasleen Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 April, 2026
CRWP-4830-2026(O&M) 1
110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-4830-2026(O&M)
Date of Decision :28.04.2026
Jasleen Kaur and Another
....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr. N.S.Gill, Advocate for
Mr. H.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners
MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect the
life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents,
who are none other than the family members of the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks protection of
life and liberty of the petitioners by contending that both of them are
major and are living together in a 'live-in relationship' against the
wishes of the private respondents and seek appropriate protection
from the authorities. Petitioner No.1 is already married to respondent
No.4, however, is now living with petitioner No.2 in a 'live-in
relationship'. They have submitted a representation dated 22.04.2026
(Annexure P-3) in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Moga, but are still apprehensive about their security in view of the
apparent inaction and alleged clout of their family members-
respondents.
3. Notice of motion only to official respondents.
4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. A copy of
the paper-book be handed over to him during the course of the day.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an
order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 02.11.2021
passed in CRWP-10411-2021 Amandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab & Ors. wherein one of the parties was married, however, was
in a 'live-in relationship' with another person other than her husband,
this Court had granted protection to the petitioners. He further relies
upon decision rendered in CRWP-4521-2021 titled as 'Pardeep
Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on
18.05.2021 wherein protection was granted to a couple in a 'live-in
relationship'.
6. This Court has made the following observations in
Pardeep Singh's case(supra) while granting protection to the
petitioners who were residing in a live-in relationship:-
"The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the land.
Right to life and liberty is enshrined therein and is treated as
a basic feature. The said right includes the right of an
individual to full development of his/her potential in
accordance with his/her choice and wish and for such
purpose, he/she is entitled to choose a partner of his/her
choice and wish and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to
choose a partner of his/her choice. The individual also has
the right to formalize the relationship with the partner
through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a
live-in relationship. The concept of live-in-relationships has
crept into our society from western nations and initially,
found acceptance in the metropolitan cities, probably
because, individuals felt that formalization of a relationship
through marriage was not necessary for complete fulfillment.
Education played a great role in development of this concept.
Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and
villages also as is evident from this petition. This shows that
social acceptance for live-in-relationships is on the increase.
In law, such a relationship is not prohibited nor does it
amount to commission of any offence and thus, in my
considered view such persons are entitled to equal protection
of laws as any other citizen of the country. The law postulates
that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and
must be protected irrespective of individual views. The
Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have
married against the wishes of their respective parents. They
seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and
family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical
situation exits where the couple has entered into a live-in-
relationship. The only difference is that the relationship is not
universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my
considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their
safety from relatives in both situations and not from the
society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen
can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country
governed by Rule of Law. The petition is accordingly,
disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider the
representation dated 9.5.2021 (Annexure P3) and to provide
appropriate protection, if found necessary. It shall be ensured
that no harm comes either to the lives or liberty of the
petitioners."
7. Thus, in view of the law laid down in Pardeep Singh's
case (supra), this Court is of the view that even in case the petitioners
are in a "Live-in Relationship", protection qua the life and liberty of
the petitioners being sacrosanct stands at the highest pedestal. Thus,
they are entitled to be granted protection of life and liberty.
8. Thus, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga is
directed to consider the representation dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-
3) qua threat perception and take appropriate steps to ensure that no
harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
9. It is nevertheless clarified that this order is issued only on
the premise that the petitioners are major as seen from the documents
placed on record being their Aadhar Cards as Annexures P-1 and P-2
respectively. This would not ipso facto amount to granting any seal of
approval on the legality of their relationship. Further, they would not
be entitled for any protection against their arrest or continuance of
any criminal proceedings, if otherwise, found to be involved in
commission of any cognizable offence(s).
10. The petition is disposed of with the above direction.
11. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
April 28, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
