Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a plea of two live-in partners, refused to grant them protection of the law because their live-in relationship contract clearly mentioned that it was not a marital relationship. The bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan deemed the clause a “misuse of process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society”.
The petitioner had approached the court seeking protection against private respondents, as she was in a contractual live-in relationship with a male. The petitioner cited previous judgments of the high court in Sukhbir Singh v. State of Punjab and ors (CRM-M-13953-2015) as well as Simran Kaur v. State of Punjab and ors (CRM-M-28467-2017) whereby the court had directed the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the request of couples in live-in relationship seeking protection.
The petitioner, Moyana Khatun, 18, submitted that she had executed a deed of live-in-relationship with Labh Singh, 19 (both majors in eyes of the law) whereby certain terms were settled by mutual consent. In the deed it stated that both the parties have agreed that their live-in-relationship is not ‘Marital Relationship’ and in para 5 it is stated that the parties will fully cooperate with each other without any dispute and issue and will not claim anything against each other.
The deed further states that if any of the parties backs out from the aforesaid deed, the other party will have a right to approach a competent Court of law for implementation of the same. It is also stated that on attaining marriageable age the parties agree to solemnise marriage.
The DAG Punjab opposed the plea on the ground that such deed of live-in-relationship is impermissible in law, when the parties have not attained the age of performing marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. He further submitted that under section 26 of Indian Contract Act an agreement in restraint of marriage is a void agreement and hence, not enforceable. He stated that the contractual deed of the petitioner was void agreement and cannot be accepted. It was also contended that petitioner no. 2 is not of marriageable age and thus not competent to have a live-in-relationship with petitioner No.1.
The bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan observed that it did not find any merit in the terms and conditions of live-in relationship of the petitioners, which stated that it was not a marital relationship and called it a “misuse of process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society”.
The petition was thus, dismissed.
Ironically, another bench of the same high court, in an order dated March 10, has suggested that the government should consider setting up safe houses for facilitating protection of such couples seeking protection of their life and liberty as also help desks so that they do not have to come to the court each time.
In December 2020, a bench of Justice Alka Sarin had remarked that merely because the boy is not of marriageable age (though major) the right of petitioners to live together cannot be denied.
The complete order may be read here:
Related:
Major couple even if not of marriageable age can live together: Punjab and Haryana HC
Punjab and Haryana HC suggest safe houses for inter-caste couples
Himachal Pradesh HC allows inter caste union, upholds women’s right to choose
Intimacies of marriage private, can’t be affected by matters of faith: SC