[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajia Deen And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 May, 2026
CRWP-6101-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
139 CRWP-6101-2026
Date of Decision: 22.05.2026
Rajia Deen and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Shiv, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
protect life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 to
12 as they are in a 'live-in relationship' against the wishes of their family
members.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the averments made
in the petition, to state that both the petitioners are major and the date of
birth of petitioner No.1 and No.2 are 15.08.2003 and 10.04.1997
respectively. The copies of their Aadhaar cards are annexed with the
petition. The petitioners are stated to be in a 'live-in relationship', on account
of which family members of the petitioners are giving threats to them.
3. Notice of motion.
4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and has no
objection in deciding the representation filed on behalf of the petitioners.
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; CRWP-8081-2021 titled as 'Goutam Kumar and
another vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 26.08.2021 and also by
the Division Bench in LPA 769-2021 titled as 'Ishrat Bano and another vs.
State of Punjab and others' decided on 03.09.2021 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 oursociety 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. 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 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. Resultantly, in view of the above prayer made by the petitioners
and without commenting upon the aspect of the nature of their relationship
or expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of
Police, Patiala to look into the representation dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure
P-4) and if any threat perception is found, to take appropriate action in
accordance with law.
10. It is however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the
authorities to proceed against the petitioners, in case, they are found
involved in any other criminal proceedings, instituted/pending against them
if there is some evidence that surfaces regarding their involvement in a
cognizable offence, for which they may be required by the investigating
agency.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
