IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-14116-2025

DATE OF DECISION: 31.12.2025

TANU AND ANR ....PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

*****

Present: Mr. Lovish Rattan, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the official respondents no.2 & 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents

No.4 to 8.

2. The factual matrix of the present case unfolds as under:- The Petitioner No.1 is major and aged 21 years, and Petitioner No.2 is aged 30 years. Both the petitioners are presently cohabiting without having solemnized marriage with each other. It is relevant to state that Petitioner No.1 is legally married to Respondent No.4, who has persistently refused to grant her a divorce despite matrimonial disputes. The petitioners developed mutual affection after Respondent No.4 forcibly ousted Petitioner No.1 from her matrimonial home.

Thereafter, the petitioners decided to reside together in a live-in relationship. However, respondents has been extending grave and life-threatening intimidation to the petitioners on account of their relationship. In this regard, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 20.12.2025 to the police authorities, which is annexed herewith as Annexure P-3.

3. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that India is a democratic nation governed by a well-defined social and legal framework. Marriage has traditionally been regarded as an important social institution in Indian society. Across communities and religions, marriage is viewed as a sacred bond carrying moral, social, and legal obligations. It is considered a foundation for family life and social stability, and Indian culture places significant importance on values, ethics, and social discipline.

4. Marriage is not merely a private arrangement between two individuals, it has public significance and legal consequences. The institution of marriage and family plays a vital role in ensuring social order, providing security, and facilitating the upbringing of children. Marriage creates reciprocal duties between spouses, including mutual support and joint responsibility towards children born out of the wedlock.

5. However, with the passage of time and changing social dynamics, certain sections of society have adopted modern lifestyles, including live-in relationships, which differ from traditional Indian cultural norms.

6. The Supreme Court in “D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469” has laid down specific conditions for recognizing a live-in relationship. It was held that the parties must present themselves to society as being akin to spouses, must be of legal age to marry, and must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage.

7. Further, the no law abiding citizen who is already married can seek protection of this Court for illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of social fabric of this country. The sanctity of marriage pre-supposes divorce. If the petitioner no. 1 has any difference with her husband/ respondent no. 4, she has to first move to the court for getting separated from her spouse as per law applicable to her. This court does not permit the parties to such illegality as tomorrow petitioners may convey that we have sanctified their illicit relations. Live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of social fabric of this Country and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relations.

8. In the present case, it is undisputed that Petitioner No.1 is legally married and her marriage subsists in the eyes of law, as no decree of divorce has been granted. A subsisting legal marriage creates binding obligations, and entering into another relationship during its continuance cannot