IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-13402-2025

Date of decision: 18.12.2025

RAMNA AND ANR. ….Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:- Ms. Ramna and Mr. Vishal Nath, petitioners in person.

None for the State.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate directions to official respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty

of the petitioners from private respondents.

2. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be born on 01.01.2004 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner No.2 is stated to be born on 02.02.2007 and for the said purpose, has produced the copy of PAN Card, which is taken on record. It is stated that the petitioners are in a “Live in Relationship” since petitioner no.1/Ramna was already married to respondent No.4/Sagar Nath and no child was born out of this wedlock whereas petitioner No.2/Vishal

Nath is not of marriageable age.

3. The petitioners submit that they have given a representation dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent no.2- Senior

Superintendent of Police, District Bathinda and they would be satisfied in case respondent no.2 is directed to look into the said representation and after considering threat perception to the petitioners, to take appropriate action.

4. Notice of motion to respondents Nos.1 to 3 only.

5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRWP-4521- 2021 titled as “Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others”, has 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 Rule of Law.

The petition is accordingly, disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 9.5.2021 (Annexure P-3) and to provide appropriate protection, if found necessary. It shall be ensured that no harm comes either to the lives or liberty of the pet