Skip to main content
Sabrang
Sabrang
Freedom Rule of Law

Live-in relationship is morally and socially unacceptable: Punjab & Haryana HC

Different judges of the high court in the recent past have passed such regressive orders, that not only go against orders passed by the court in the past, but also contravene precedents laid out by the apex court

Sabrangindia 19 May 2021

Image Courtesy:india.com

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant protection to a couple living together, apprehending danger from the parents of one of the petitioners. The bench of Justice HS Madaan while denying such protection called their live-in relationship morally and socially unacceptable.

This is not the first time the judges of this high court have taken such a regressive view towards relationships. A few days ago, another bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal had denied protection to a couple where the couple was 18 to 21 years old stating that if such protection is granted the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed. It is commonplace for couples in inter-caste of interfaith relationships to approach the high court for granting them protection as they apprehend threat from either or both families to life. While in the past, the high court has accepted such petitions with open arms, these single-judge benches have crushed hopes of these and many other young couples who placed their trust and faith in the judiciary to protect their rights.

In March, single-judge bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi held the marriage between a Hindu man and a Muslim woman to be invalid, as all wedding ceremonies and rites were in accordance with Hindu traditions without the woman converting to Hinduism before solemnisation. Further, bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan deemed the clause in the couple’s live-in relationship contract which clearly mentioned that it was not a marital relationship to be a “misuse of process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society”.

On the other hand the bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan had suggested that the states provide safe houses for inter-caste or inter-faith couples apprehending threat, so that they do not have to approach the court each time.

In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010), the Supreme Court held that, the live-in relationship if continued for long time, cannot be termed as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship and that there is a presumption of marriage between the parties. Further, In landmark case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship comes within the ambit of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and the act of two majors living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful.

The May 11 order may be read here:

The May 12 order may be read here:

Related:

Punjab and Haryana HC suggest safe houses for inter-caste couples
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert
Punjab and Haryana HC refuses to grant protection to live-in couple

Live-in relationship is morally and socially unacceptable: Punjab & Haryana HC

Different judges of the high court in the recent past have passed such regressive orders, that not only go against orders passed by the court in the past, but also contravene precedents laid out by the apex court

Image Courtesy:india.com

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant protection to a couple living together, apprehending danger from the parents of one of the petitioners. The bench of Justice HS Madaan while denying such protection called their live-in relationship morally and socially unacceptable.

This is not the first time the judges of this high court have taken such a regressive view towards relationships. A few days ago, another bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal had denied protection to a couple where the couple was 18 to 21 years old stating that if such protection is granted the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed. It is commonplace for couples in inter-caste of interfaith relationships to approach the high court for granting them protection as they apprehend threat from either or both families to life. While in the past, the high court has accepted such petitions with open arms, these single-judge benches have crushed hopes of these and many other young couples who placed their trust and faith in the judiciary to protect their rights.

In March, single-judge bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi held the marriage between a Hindu man and a Muslim woman to be invalid, as all wedding ceremonies and rites were in accordance with Hindu traditions without the woman converting to Hinduism before solemnisation. Further, bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan deemed the clause in the couple’s live-in relationship contract which clearly mentioned that it was not a marital relationship to be a “misuse of process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society”.

On the other hand the bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan had suggested that the states provide safe houses for inter-caste or inter-faith couples apprehending threat, so that they do not have to approach the court each time.

In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010), the Supreme Court held that, the live-in relationship if continued for long time, cannot be termed as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship and that there is a presumption of marriage between the parties. Further, In landmark case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship comes within the ambit of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and the act of two majors living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful.

The May 11 order may be read here:

The May 12 order may be read here:

Related:

Punjab and Haryana HC suggest safe houses for inter-caste couples
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert
Punjab and Haryana HC refuses to grant protection to live-in couple

Related Articles

Sunday

03

Jan

Pan-India

Saturday

05

Dec

05 pm onwards

Rise in Rage!

North Gate, JNU campus

Thursday

26

Nov

10 am onwards

Delhi Chalo

Pan India

Theme

2020

Milestones 2020

In the year devastated by the Covid 19 Pandemic, India witnessed apathy against some of its most marginalised people and vilification of dissenters by powerful state and non state actors. As 2020 draws to a close, and hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers continue their protest in the bitter North Indian cold. Read how Indians resisted all attempts to snatch away fundamental and constitutional freedoms.
Migrant Diaries

Migrant Diaries

The 2020 COVID pandemic brought to fore the dismal lives that our migrant workers lead. Read these heartbreaking stories of how they lived before the pandemic, how the lockdown changed their lives and what they’re doing now.
Delhi HC

Hate Speech and Delhi Pogrom 2020

A spate of provocative speeches, that amount to hate speech in law and should be prosecuted allowed blood letting to spill on the streets of north east Delhi in February-March 2020
hashimpura

Hashimpura Massacre

The Lemmings of Hashimpura

Campaigns

Sunday

03

Jan

Pan-India

Saturday

05

Dec

05 pm onwards

Rise in Rage!

North Gate, JNU campus

Thursday

26

Nov

10 am onwards

Delhi Chalo

Pan India

IN FACT

Analysis

2020

Milestones 2020

In the year devastated by the Covid 19 Pandemic, India witnessed apathy against some of its most marginalised people and vilification of dissenters by powerful state and non state actors. As 2020 draws to a close, and hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers continue their protest in the bitter North Indian cold. Read how Indians resisted all attempts to snatch away fundamental and constitutional freedoms.
Migrant Diaries

Migrant Diaries

The 2020 COVID pandemic brought to fore the dismal lives that our migrant workers lead. Read these heartbreaking stories of how they lived before the pandemic, how the lockdown changed their lives and what they’re doing now.
Delhi HC

Hate Speech and Delhi Pogrom 2020

A spate of provocative speeches, that amount to hate speech in law and should be prosecuted allowed blood letting to spill on the streets of north east Delhi in February-March 2020
hashimpura

Hashimpura Massacre

The Lemmings of Hashimpura

Archives