Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects plea to protect live-in relationship since woman was still married to another

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to grant police protection to a live-in couple after noting that one of the persons in the live-in relationship was still married to another [Balwinder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others]..Justice Alok Jain raised questions over the relationship, terming it "illicit" and "promiscuous", since the woman had a subsisting marriage as well as a son from that wedlock.While the woman had claimed that her husband had been beating her, the judge took critical note that neither had the woman filed for divorce nor taken any other action against the same. The Court proceeded to reject the plea to protect the woman and her live-in partner after also noting that only vague allegations of threats have been made in the petition. “Merely the sweet will of the petitioners and the right to life and liberty granted to them under the Constitution of India cannot be a right in isolation and with every right, there comes a duty which is also to be adhered to,” Justice Jain added..The couple had earlier withdrawn a similar petition seeking protection against alleged threats to their life and liberty. The Court was told that they subsequently had approached the police for protection.Calling it an “interesting case”, Justice Jain noted that the petition did not disclose when the petitioner (woman) had got married or the age of her child.“The present petition is misleading and conceals the material facts, which admittedly is done to cover up the promiscuous relationship which petitioner No.1 (woman) has with petitioner No. 2,” the Court said..It further noted that not a single complaint was filed by the woman against her husband earlier while she had leveled allegations against him and his family in the plea seeking protection.The Court observed that the petitioners had been living together for more than four months. Even so, the woman had not "bothered" to file a single petition for either seeking divorce from her husband or taking action against him for allegedly beating her, the Court added. “She admittedly wanted to continue with both the relationships which is unknown to the cannons of social fabric, at least in this country,” said the Court while dismissing the petition.Advocate Yogesh Kumar Aneja represented the petitioners. Deputy Advocate General PS Grewal represented the State..In another similar case (Binder Kaur and anr v. State of Punjab), where the couple was in a live-in relationship despite subsisting marriage, Justice Jain had earlier rejected the petition seeking protection and imposed a cost of ₹ 2,500 on them“One’s choice to live outside wedlock does not mean that married persons are free to live in live-in relationship with others during subsistence of marriage, as it would amount to transgressing the valid legal framework,” the judge had said in that order..[Read Order]