IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 06.10.2025 Satnam Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. A.S. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)

[1] The prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 10, who are in a live-in relationship against the wishes of private respondents.

[2] The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.2 is married with respondent No.4 and out of the wedlock, a minor child was born, who is in the custody of petitioner No.4. It is further submitted that due to temperamental differences, petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4 are living separately for the last 02 years and even divorce proceedings are pending between them. In the meanwhile, both the petitioners developed liking for each other and as such, they have started living together. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the private respondents are interfering in their relationship and are threatening them of dire consequences. The petitioners feeling imminent danger to their life and liberty, submitted a written representation dated 05.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2, but till date no police protection has been provided to the petitioners, and they are facing constant threat from the private respondent Nos.4 to 10.

[3] Notice of motion.

[4] On the asking of the Court, Mr. Balwinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

[5] The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in “Yash Pal and another vs. State of Haryana and others”, bearing CRWP-4660- 2021, CRWP-149-2024 and LPA-968-2021 (O&M), decided on 09.09.2024, formulated various questions for decision, including the following question:-

“6. xxxxxxxxxx

1. Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty by filing an appropriate petition, whether the Court is required to grant them protection, per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case?

2. xxxxxxxxxxxx”

[6] While relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and another”, (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 600; “Nandakumar and another vs. State of Karala and others”, (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 602; “Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan K.M. and others”, (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 368; and “Soni Gerry vs. Gerry Douglas”, (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 197, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that qua adults in a live-in relationship for warding off threats arising from moral vigilants or from the close relatives or any of them, protection is required to be granted. While affirming the view taken by some of the Single Benches of this Court in various decisions, it was held as under:-

“For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter the judgments (supra) rendered by the Apex Court, and, the judgments rendered by Full Benches of this Court in LPA No. 1678 of 2014 and in LPA No. 769 of 2021, besides the verdicts (supra) rendered by this Court, wherebys qua adults in a live-in relationship, thus the espoused protection but for warding off threats arising from moral vigilants or from the close relatives of any of them, has been granted, thus are required to be affirmed. On the other hand, the verdicts (supra) wherebys the espoused claim for protection to the adults in a live-in relationship, has been denied, thus are respectfully disagreed with.”

[7] In view of this, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Police authorities and upon doing so, respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, shall look into the representation dated 05.10.2025, qua