In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 06.11.2025 Astha and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Ms. Simran Kaur Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

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 to 8 on account of the fact that the petitioners have started residing together in live-in-relationship.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.1-Astha is 17 years of age and petitioner No.2-Arun Kumar is aged 27 years, and are residing together in a live-in relationship, but they apprehend threat to their life and liberty from the private respondents. While drawing the attention of this Court to representation dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), learned counsel has submitted that the matter was reported to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, 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, Yamuna Nagar, to look into the aforesaid representation and take appropriate steps at the earliest.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that both the petitioners are living in live-in-relationship, 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 scheme 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 in 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 live-in-relationship.

Upon consideration, it is clear that the girl/petitioner No.1 is a minor.

7. Albeit, a live-in-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 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. On of the condition is that “they must be of legal age to marry”.

8. Moreover, in Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800, the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, which allowed marital intercourse with a wife above the age of 15 years, is unconstitutional, and the age of consent in all cases is 18 years, even within marriage. F