[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shashi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 March, 2026
CRWP-3264-2026(O&M) 1
122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-3264-2026(O&M)
Date of Decision : 24.03.2026
Shashi and Another ....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Ms. Jainika Jain, 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 their respective family members and to seek appropriate
protection from the authorities, they have submitted a representation
(Annexure P-3) in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, 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.
1 of 4
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 issue as to whether marriage is a must for providing
protection to a couple in a 'live-in relationship', keeping in view the
fundamental rights ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, has been considered by the different Benches of this Court in
CRWP-4521-2021 titled as 'Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of
Haryana and others' decided on 18.05.2021 and in LPA 1678-2014
titled as 'Rajwinder Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and
others' decided on 09.10.2014.
6. This Court in Pardeep Singh's case(supra) while
granting protection to the petitioners therein, where they were residing
in a live-in relationship, had held as under:
"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.
2 of 4
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. In Rajwinder Kaur's case(supra), the Division Bench
has held as under:-
"We have no reason to doubt that the fundamental right
to life and liberty is so sacrosanct and stands at such a high
pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of an
incident like solemnization of a valid marriage between the
parties. While the appellants might be required to satisfy an
appropriate forum regarding the validity of their marriage
but even in the absence of such validation, the State is
obligated to protect their life and liberty. We, thus, modify the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of this
appeal with a direction to the respondent-police-authorities
to ensure that no harm is caused by anyone to the life and
liberty of the appellants. The police-authorities shall,
however, verify the age of the appellants and if any further
remedial action is required to be taken on such verification,
the same shall be taken forthwith."
8. Thus, in view of the law laid down in Pardeep Singh's
case (supra) and Rajwinder Kaur's case(supra), this Court is of the
3 of 4
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.
9. Thus, the Senior Superintendent of Police, S.A.S Nagar,
Mohali is directed to consider the representation (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.
10. It is nevertheless clarified that this order is issued only on
the premise that the petitioners have crossed the age of majority 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).
11. The petition is disposed of with the above direction.
12. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
March 24, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
