A live-in relationship involving a minor cannot be granted legal protection as it violates statutory safeguards under the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act, and fails the legal requirement that both partners must be of legal marriageable age.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J . (Oral)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on account of the fact that the petitioners are involved in love and affair with each other.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.1-AXXX is 17 years of age and petitioner No.2-Harpreet Singh is aged 25 years, and are involved in love and affair with each other, but they apprehend threat to their life and liberty from the private respondents. While drawing the attention of this Court to representation dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-3), learned counsel has submitted that the matter was reported to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, District Fatehabad, seeking police protection, however, it went in vain. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if directions are issued to respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, District Fatehabad, to look into the aforesaid representation and take appropriate steps at the earliest.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that both the petitioners are involved in love and affair with each other, however, petitioner No.1 has not attained the age of majority. A child cannot have a live-in-relationship as it would be an act not only immoral but also illegal. There are several conditions for live-in-relation to be treated as relation in nature of marriage. In case, this is permitted, this would amount to putting premium on an illegal activity and thus, would not be in the interest of our society. Such kind of relationship should not be protected with the umbrella of protection granted by this Court. There is no dispute to the proposition that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and it is imperative upon the State to take adequate measures to protect the life and liberty of each person. However, there are statutory safeguards required under the statutory schemes to protect the interest of a minor and once such a fact comes to the notice of the Court, it becomes incumbent upon the Court in its capacity as parens patriae to examine what is in the best interest of the minor.

5. Heard.

6. Petitioners are seeking protection in matter pertaining to live-in-relationship, however, one of the partner i.e. petitioner No.1 is admittedly below the age of 18 years. Petitioners seek protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, citing threats from the private respondents due to the said relationship. Upon consideration, it is clear that the girl/petitioner No.1 is a minor.

7. Albeit, a relationship in the nature of marriage has attained sanction of law by the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, there are certain pre-requisite conditions required for a relation to be a lawful relationship/live-in-relationship. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases titled as “ D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal , Criminal Appeal Nos.2028-2029 of 2010” and “ Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma , 2014 AIR Supreme Court 309” has laid down the conditions for a relationship to be a valid relationship in the nature of marriage. One of the condition is that “they must be of legal age to marry”.