'Live-In Relationships Morally Unacceptable': Punjab & Haryana HC¡¯s Departure From Progressive Rulings Is A Let Down

In its order dated May 12, 2021, the Punjab and Haryana high court refused to grant protection to a young couple who moved to court fearing threat to life from the girl's family.

The court observed: "If such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed.¡±

¡°As a matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking seal of approval on their live-in-relationship, which is morally and socially not acceptable and no protection order in the petition can be passed. The petition stands dismissed accordingly," Justice Madaan wrote in his order.

The order marked a stark departure from the trend in recognising the legal rights of a live-in couple.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, defines a domestic relationship as ¡°two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.¡±

This gave way for courts to consider instances of domestic violence in relationships which aren't marital but close to marriage.

Law recognises live-in relationships

On July 23, 2015, live-in relationships, culturally considered a forbidden practice, were declared as an acceptable custom in Indian society by the Supreme Court of India.

The apex court had ruled out live-in relationships as a crime.

Representational Image

The court said that with the passing of time the society has accepted it and the relationship does not attract any penal action. The court also declared that the public should not look into the personal life of a public figure since it serves up no public interest.

The petitions had been filed by Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Subramanian Swamy who wanted the apex court to decriminalise the offence of defamation.

In May, 2018, the Supreme Court set aside a Kerala high court judgement annulling 20-year-old Thushara¡¯s marriage to her husband Nandakumar, who turned 21 on May 30, 2018.

The apex court said that adult couples have the right to live together even though they may not be married.

A bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan observed: "Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock, they have the right to live together even outside wedlock."

¡°It would not be out of place to mention that ¡®live-in relationship¡¯ is now recognised by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,¡± they added.

In June, 2018, the Kerala high court allowed an 18-year-old boy and a 19-year-old girl to live together.

The court said that the girl had attained puberty and had the capacity to marry both under Section 251 of Mahomedan Law as well as the provisions of the Act.

The court held that both the girl and the boy are adults and said that the girl, a Muslim, is free to live with the boy or marry him later when he attains the marriageable age.

"The constitutional court is bound to respect the unfettered right of a major to have a live-in relationship even though the same may not be palatable to the orthodox section of the society," the court noted.

Odisha allows same-sex live-in relationship

In August, 2020, the Odisha high court allowed a woman to live with her same sex partner and also extended protection of domestic violence law to the woman partner for her to exercise her legal rights in case they the couple decides to part ways.

A 24-year-old woman filed a petition in the court to get back her same-sex partner who was forcibly separated from her by the partner's (Rashmi) mother and uncle.

The petitioner in the matter, a female, had exercised his rights of gender determination and preferred to be addressed as he/his.

Therefore, the court recognised the petitioner's right to be treated like a male and referred to him as he/him/his throughout the proceedings of the case.

In Kamini Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad high court, last year, ruled that live-in relationships, though not socially accepted in India, do not amount to any offence under law.

Representational Image

According to the division bench¡¯s judgment, in this case, it is settled law ¡°¡­that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together.¡±

The court observed that nobody would be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living as the right to life was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Haryana and Punjab high court's order is a step back from the recent progressive spate of the Indian judiciary that has upheld the rights of young consenting adults to live life on their own terms.