The legal point established is that seeking protection for a live-in relationship, especially when one party is still legally married to another person, goes against the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and societal customs.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. - Manjot Singh (petitioner No. 1), aged 27 years, and Kajal (petitioner No. 2), aged 20 years, have approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to protect lives and personal liberty of the petitioners and also for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 4 to 9 or their associates or any other person at their behest, not to interfere in the personal lives and liberty of the petitioners or to harass them in any manner against their wishes.

2. It is pleaded in the petition that petitioner No. 2 is a legally wedded wife of Jagroop Singh (respondent No. 9). Marriage between both of them was performed on 09.11.2021, however, no child was born out of the said wedlock. It is also pleaded in the petition that marriage of petitioner No. 2 was performed with respondent No. 9 against her wishes as she was having love affair with petitioner No. 1 from last three years. According to petitioner No. 2, she was unhappy with her first marriage as she was already in love affair with petitioner No. 1, thus, now after leaving her husband (respondent No. 9), she has started living in a live-in relationship with her earlier friend, i.e. petitioner No. 1.

3. Conduct of petitioner No. 2 is surprising for the reason that marrying with respondent No. 9 is admitted by her, whereas already she was in love affair with petitioner No. 1 for the last three years. Even she has not cared to the provisions of law of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where procedure for seeking divorce from the spouse is also provided. Thus, passing any such order directing to provide protection to the unacceptable relation to the society, and that too against the law prevailing in the country, would be in derogation to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. Even otherwise, it will be an attempt to seek approval of the relation of petitioners under the seal of the order of this Court. Relation of petitioner No. 1 with petitioner No. 2, in fact, amounts to committing of an offence under Section 494 IPC and naming it as 'live-in relationship' is nothing but an eyewash to the society to come out of the other statutory restrictions.

5. Any relation which is against the provisions of law or is not permitted as per society's customs, may be concerned persons are entitled to take their independent decision, cannot be allowed to continue by giving direction to the authorities to provide such persons special security for protection.

This Court cannot ignore the phenomena that any order passed under the Constitutional power enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would carry a different impact in the society as a whole, wherever the order is circulated or message reaches around. Passing any protection order would amount fixing a seal of approval by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a relation which otherwise is illegal and unacceptable.

6. Rather, such petitions cannot be considered routine protection petitions. Any direction to the administration to grant protection, would be offending to the already married spouse, whose company has been left by his/her married life partner. Pain and agony of the hapless spouse, who is already married to the protection seeker(s), must not be ignored/forgotten while issuing direction to the State administration, to provide protection to the unwarranted relations of the petitioners.

7. Somehow, this Court has already taken almost similar view in the petitions of similarly situated petitioners/protection seekers and have dismissed the petitions. In the case of Harpreet Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others (CRWP-10399-2021, decided on 01.1.2021 : Law Finder Doc Id # 1904930), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has made the following observations:

'2. Perusal of file shows that petitioner No.1 Harpreet Kaur aged about 23 years is legally wedded wife of respondent No.4 Gurjant Singh, and without seeking divorce fro