Individuals in a live-in relationship are entitled to be granted protection of life and liberty, and are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country.

Aman Chaudhary. J. - The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the official respondents to protect life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos.4 & 5 as they are in a 'live-in' against the wishes of their family members.

2. As per the averments made, both the petitioners are major and the date of births of petitioner No.1 is 01.01.2002 and petitioner No.2 is 01.01.2004. The copies of their Aadhar cards are appended as Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. The petitioners are in a 'live-in relationship', on account of which family members of petitioner No.1 are giving threats to them that on finding an occasion they will forcibly take her back and kill them.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. AG, Haryana 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. 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.

Let us examine the issue from another view-point. 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