The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently said that married persons who leave their "parental homes" to be in live-in relationships outside their marriage are bringing a "bad name" to their parents and also violate the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil made the comment while dealing with petitions of couples in live-in relationship despite their existing marriages.
“The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners by running away from their parental home is not only bringing bad name to the family but also is violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour," the Court said.
The judge, while stressing on moral values and customs in India, ruled that such couples cannot be granted police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution as that will amount to Court indirectly giving its assent to such “illicit relationships”.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of life to all citizens but such freedom has to be within the ambit of law, the Court said.
“Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution each and every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour, therefore, by allowing such type of petitions we are encouraging the wrongdoers and somewhere promoting the practice of bigamy which is otherwise an offence under Section 494 IPC, further violating the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity,” the judge said.
In the present matter, three couples had approached the Court for protection of life and non-interference in their relationships.
In one of the cases, a 40-year-old woman was in a live-in relationship with a 44-year-old man. Both the man and woman were already married to other persons and had children out of those wedlock, the Court noted.
While the woman had taken divorce from her husband in 2013, the man still has a wife and also a child from that marriage, the Court noted.
While rejecting the petitions, the Court expressed its opinion on the trend of live-in relationships and the concept of marriage in Indian society.
"This court is of the view that India is recognized for its democratic administration and domestic framework. People, on the whole, have a strong attachment to their houses, perceiving that a human has a marriage is the most important cognitive process. In our diverse country, marriage as social tie is one the essential of Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community,” the Court said.
It added that India is a country with a diverse set of principles, traditions, rituals and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem, the judge opined.
“Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted Modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship,” Justice Moudgil further said.
In this backdrop, the Court said the petitioners were “fully aware” that since both of them were married earlier, they “could not have” entered into a live-relationship.
“If this Court holds that the relationship between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the wife and children who opposed that relationship,” it added.
The Court further said that entering into marriage is to enter into a relationship that has public significance as well.
The institutions of marriage and the family are important social institutions that provide for the security and bear an important role in the rearing of children, the judge opined.
"The celebration of a marriage gives rise to moral and legal obligation, particularly the reciprocal duty of support placed upon spouses and their joint responsibility for supporting and raising children born out of the wedlock”.
Considering the discussion and its opinion, the Court said certain conditions are required to be fulfilled by such partners to attach legitimate sanctity to such a relationship.
“Merely because the two persons are living together for few days, their claim of live-in relationship based upon bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in live-in-relationship and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship, and, therefore, the orders cannot be passed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of life to all citizens, but such freedom has to be within the ambit of law,” it said, while dismissing the petitions.
However, it also clarified that the petitioners can approach the police authorities to show that they have genuine grievance or threat to their life.
The police authority may do the needful after verification of all the facts as narrated by them in their representation, it ordered.
Advocates Rahi Mehra, Vikram Singh Narwal and Suman Kumari represented the petitioners.
[Read Judgment]