IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Ritu Sethi & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-4018 of 2024
Decided On : 24-07-2024
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)
By this common order, this Court intends to dispose of all the writ petitions as common question of law is involved therein.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRWP-4018- 2024.
3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and to restrain the private respondents No.4 and 5 not to harass, threaten or interfere in the peaceful relationship of the petitioners.
4. The factual matrix of the present case unfolds as under:-
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this court is of the view that India is recognized for its democratic administration and domestic framework. People, on the whole, have a strong attachment to their houses, perceiving that a human has a marriage is the most important cognitive process. In our diverse country, marriage as social tie is one the essential of Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community. India is a country with a diverse set of principles traditions, rituals, and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted Modern lifestyle, namely, the live-in relationship.
6. With regard to the status of live-in-relationship with an existing marriage, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, has held that all live-in-relationships could not be considered synonyms to the relationships in the "nature of marriage". A live-in-relationship between a married man and a woman or a married woman with a man is not akin to marriage, as it amounts to adultery and bigamy, which is unlawful. Therefore, such woman are not entitled to any protection under the DV Act. Furthermore, certain guidelines were framed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment to consider the live-in- relationships in the nature of marriage wherein the following observations were made:-
Live-in relationships involving married individuals do not equate to marriage and are unlawful, lacking essential characteristics of marriage, thus not entitled to protection under the Domestic Viole....
Live-in relationships involving a married person do not have legal recognition as marriages and do not qualify for protection under domestic violence laws.
The fundamental right to life and liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, includes the right to choose a partner of one's choice and formalize the relationship through marri....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.