115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21.01.2026 Nitika and Another ....Petitioners VERSUS UT, Chandigarh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vikram Pundir, Advocate for Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Samir Rathaur, Addl. Public Prosecutor, UT, Chandigarh for respondents no. 1 to 3 MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents, who are none other than the family members of the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks protection of life and liberty of the petitioners by contending that both of them having attained the age of majority and are living together in a ‘live-in relationship’ against the wishes of their respective family members and seek appropriate protection from the authorities. They have submitted a representation dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, but are still apprehensive about their security in view of the apparent inaction and alleged clout of their family members-respondents.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Samir Rathaur, Additional Public Prosecutor, UT, Chandigarh, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. A copy of the paper-book be handed over to him during the course of the day.

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 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 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. 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 h