Minor's Consent to Live-in Relationship Legally Irrelevant, No Protection Granted: Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRWP 3512/2025

High Court Denies Protection to Couple, Cites Minor's Invalid Consent in Live-in Relationship

Chandigarh: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP 3512/2025) filed by a couple seeking protection of their life and liberty, emphasizing that the alleged consent of a minor to a live-in relationship is legally irrelevant. Justice Rattan Pal Singh , presiding over the bench, found the petition devoid of merit, particularly as one of the petitioners, Lovepreet Kaur , was admittedly a minor aged 17.

Case Background: Couple Seeks Protection Amidst Family Opposition

The petitioners, Lovepreet Kaur (Petitioner No.1) and another individual (Petitioner No.2), approached the High Court alleging threats to their lives and liberty from the parents and uncle of Lovepreet Kaur . They claimed to be in a consensual live-in relationship, with Lovepreet Kaur residing with Petitioner No.2 out of her own volition.

According to the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, Lovepreet Kaur left her home with Petitioner No.2 on January 22, 2024, and they travelled to Bihar. Upon their return to Mansa in March 2024, they allegedly faced disapproval and threats of dire consequences from Lovepreet Kaur 's family. A representation dated January 25, 2024, had reportedly been submitted to official respondents seeking protection, but no action had been taken.

Court's Scrutiny and Key Arguments

At the outset of the hearing on March 15, 2024, the Court specifically inquired about Lovepreet Kaur 's age. Her counsel unequivocally stated that she was a minor, aged 17 years.

When questioned further, the counsel also admitted that a complaint had been lodged by Lovepreet Kaur 's parents (the private respondents) against Petitioner No.2 in relation to her alleged elopement or disappearance.

Legal Principle: Minor's Consent Devoid of Sanctity

The High Court, after hearing the counsel and perusing the record, underscored the established legal position regarding a minor's consent. Justice Rattan Pal Singh , in his order, stated:

"In the admitted facts, it is undisputed that petitioner No.1 was a minor when she left her home in January 2024 and began cohabiting with petitioner No.2... Although, learned counsel for the petitioners feigns ignorance regarding the registration of an FIR, the fact remains that petitioner No.1, being a minor, was incapable in law of giving valid consent to the relationship with petitioner No.2."

The Court found it necessary to reiterate a crucial legal principle:

"This Court finds it necessary to reiterate that any alleged consent by a minor, in circumstances such as the present, is legally irrelevant and devoid of sanctity. The continued stay of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2, being a minor, cannot be accorded legal protection."

Decision: Petition Dismissed In Limine

The Court observed that the pendency of a complaint against Petitioner No.2, coupled with the strong likelihood of an FIR being registered, further militated against granting any relief to the petitioners.

Consequently, finding the petition "devoid of any merit," the High Court dismissed it "in limine" (at the threshold, without a full hearing). The decision reaffirms the judiciary's stance on the incapacity of minors to provide valid consent for live-in relationships that could have criminal implications for the adult partner, prioritizing the protection of minors under the law.