Can a married person be in live-in relationship?
P&H Hc | No Offence By Married Person Being In Live-In;
Hc Differs With Allahabad High Court’s Decision
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Amol Rattan Singh, J.,
held that since adultery is not an offence, no offence would be committed by a
married person by him/her being in live-in even when his/her divorce petition
is pending before the Court.
By the instant petition, the petitioners had sought issuance
of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass
them.
Noticeably,
petitioner 2 and respondent 4 having earlier been married, petitioner 2 filed a
divorce petition, which was dismissed and appeal against which was still
pending.
However, it was observed by the court that there were no
chances of reconciliation.
The petitioners submitted that they were in a live-in
relationship with each other and were in apprehension of danger to their life
and liberty at the hands of respondents 4 to 6, with the SHO, Police Station
Samrala, District Ludhiana, harassing them at the instance of the said
respondents.
Differing with the judgement of Allahabad High Court
in Aneeta v. State of U.P., WRIT – C No. 14443 of 2021 (dated
29-07-2021), wherein, it had dismissed the petition filed by live-in couple
with exemplary cost of Rs. 500 by holding that “without obtaining a
divorce, a spouse is not entitled to protection qua a relationship with another
person”; the Bench stated that prima facie, no offence would be
committed by the petitioners, they being adults in a live-in-relationship with
each other, whether or not any divorce petition was pending before the court.
Considering the judgement of Supreme Court in Joseph
Shine v.Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, by which the Supreme Court had
struck down Section 497 (adultery) of the IPC as being unconstitutional and
violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, the Bench directed the
police officials concerned to ensure that the life and liberty of the
petitioners is duly protected at the hands of respondents 4 to 6, as also at
the hands of the SHO.
The Bench warned of strict actions in case the petitioners
are again harassed by the SHO on account of any live-in-relationship that they
have with each other. [Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, CRWP-7874 of 2021,
decided on 03-09-2021]
Related
All HC | Can the family members harass a couple who on
attaining majority got married and started living together? HC reiterates SC's
position September 10, 2020
In "Case Briefs"
Telangana HC | In what conditions a complaint of bigamy
filed by wife is maintainable when another complaint under S. 498-A IPC is
already pending?
Court discusses
June 30, 2021In "Case Briefs"
All HC | Is any offence committed if two adults wish to be
in a live-in relationship? Read what HC ruled December 4, 2020 In "Case
Briefs"
NEXT STORY Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 notified
to ease the process of inter-country adoptions
HIGH COURTS
Conviction of the accused guilty of killing his wife upheld
on basis of circumstantial evidence
CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
[Custody] MP HC | Welfare of child is of paramount
importance; Mother who nurtured the child for 9 months in womb is certainly
entitled to custody
CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS
HP HC | Courts must follow a humane and justice oriented
approach when there is no inordinate delay, and opposite party can be
monetarily compensated
FACT CHECKSNEWS
Fact Check: Has Justice Dalveer Bhandari been elected as the
Chief Justice of the ICJ?
CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS
What are the essential ingredients that a landlord is
required to show for purpose of getting an eviction order for bonafide needs?
Del HC elaborates
CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS
All HC | For offence of dishonour of cheques, what needs to
be given priority – Compensatory aspect or Punitive aspect?
CASE BRIEFSSUPREME COURT
“There is a disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards …”: SC upholds arbitration award of Rs 2728 crore plus interest in favour of Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.