The Girl, who was around 22 years old at the time, chose to live with one Anil, who was around 19 years old at the time, after her guardians started pressuring her to marry someone of their choosing. They decided to live and work in such a way that they would be able to marry when Anil reached the age of 21.
The counsel of petitioners also stated that their partnership will never be recognised by the family members because both have a position with different standings. As a result, the petitioners went to the SP, Karnal, seeking protection at the hands of family members, but received no response. According to the AAG Haryana, the couple seeking confirmation is not married and is in a live-in relationship, as shown by their own pleadings. Furthermore, he said that the Coordinate Benches have recently excused comparative problem, where people who are in a live-in relationship were looking for protection.
The Court additionally noticed that the High Court in the past had permitted protection to such rampant couples, despite the fact that they were not hitched and were in a live-in relationship, and in situations where the marriage was invalid.
Further, noting that Article 21 of India’s Constitution protects its citizens’ right to life and individual liberty, the Court determined that “when a significant has chosen his or her accomplice, it isn’t for any other individual, be it a relative, to protest and make a prevent their quiet presence.
The Court made an important point: “This court sees no reason why the petitioners’ request for protection cannot be granted if they have not done any offense. With all due respect to the Coordinate Benches’ decisions, which have refused protection to couples in a live-in partnership, this court is unable to share their viewpoint.” In a case involving a live-in relationship couple who are both major and have agreed to enter into such a relationship because they are certain of their feelings for each other, the Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal made this observation.
This huge perception from the Punjab and Haryana High Court came days after the High Court wouldn’t concede security to a live-in couple who purportedly confronted dangers from the young lady’s family since their elopement while taking note of that “if such insurance as asserted is in truth, the whole friendly texture of the general public would get upset.’
“Truly, the petitioners are seeking an endorsement on their live-in partnership, which is ethically and socially insufficient, and no protection request in the appeal can be approved.”
For further details, look at the order.
Allu Hari Narayana
Bennett University, Greater Noida.