The judgment established that individuals in live-in relationships are entitled to protection of their life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and living together without the sanctity of marriage is not illegal. It emphasized the need for the state to ensure the protection and personal liberty of individuals in such relationships.

JUDGMENT :

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioners, having attained the age of 18, are seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, who are none other than the immediate family members of petitioner No. 1.

2. In brief the facts as stated are, that Ms. Soniya, petitioner No. 1 is aged 22 years 4 months with her date of birth being 01.01.1998, whereas Mr. Anil, petitioner No. 2 is younger and is 19 years 6 months old, with his date of birth being 26.09.2001. The parents of petitioner No. 1 wanted her to marry a person of their choice and threatened her with dire consequences in case she did not do so. Petitioner No. 1 left her paternal home and called upon petitioner No. 2 (whom she had known for the past one year) to save her from her parents, who wanted her to get married to a person who was much older in age. Petitioner No. 2 requested her to go back, but being fearful for her life and that she would be forcibly married to a person much older than her, she refused to do so. Consequently, she shifted in with petitioner No. 2. The petitioners decided to live together till such time as they could solemnise a marriage, i.e. on petitioner No. 2 attaining the age of 21. It is also stated that the relationship would never be accepted by the private respondents, as both belong to different castes. Petitioner No.1 belongs to Kashyap caste whereas petitioner No. 2 belongs to a Rabari caste. The petitioners have already approached the SP, Karnal vide a representation dated 12.05.2021 (Annexure P-3) seeking protection at the hands of the private respondents, but there has been no response. Fearing a threat to their life, as the relationship was not acceptable to the parents and family members of petitioner No. 1 have threatened to kill the petitioners, the instant criminal writ petition has been preferred.

3. Notice of motion to the official respondents only.

4. Mr. Vishal Kashyap, AAG Haryana, who is appearing through the medium of video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents-State and submits that the couple seeking protection are not married and according to their own pleadings are in a live in relationship. He would submit that the Coordinate Benches have recently dismissed similar matters, where protection was sought by persons who are in live-in relationship.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the pleadings of the case.

6. The petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, with a further prayer that they be restrained from interfering in the peaceful live-in relationship of the petitioners. The petitioners have not approached this court either seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship. The limited prayer as noted is for grant of protection to them, fearing the ire of family members of petitioner No.1, on account of the parties belonging to a different caste and their decision to reside together without the sanctity of a valid marriage.

7. This Court in the past and also recently has allowed protection to those runaway couples, even though they were not married and were in a live-in relationship, and in cases where the marriage was invalid (as one of the parties though a major, was not of age as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act). Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Rajwinder Kaur and another Versus State of Punjab, 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 785 where it was held that marriage is not a must for security to be provided to a runaway couple. The police authorities were directed to ensure that no harm was caused by any one to the life and liberty of the couple. Similar views have been taken by the Coordinate Benches in the matter Rajveer Kaur Versus State of Punjab, 2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 478 and in Priyapreet Kaur Versus. Stat