The High Court issued a ruling to protect married individuals who wish to enter into live-in relationships with others. The judge emphasized that India’s diverse principles, traditions, rituals, and beliefs play a crucial role in shaping its legal framework.
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that providing protection to married individuals seeking live-in relationships would essentially encourage “wrongdoers” and endorse bigamy.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil‘s bench noted that such actions by couples fleeing their parental homes tarnish their family’s reputation and infringe on their parents’ right to live with dignity and honour.
This decision followed several petitions, including one from a 40-year-old woman and a 44-year-old man seeking protection from family threats.
Read Also: “Imported Philosophy & Stigma In Indian Culture”: HC on Live-in Relationships
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a case where a 40-year-old woman and a 44-year-old man, both with children, sought protection due to family threats. The court noted that while the woman is divorced, the man remains married.
The bench stated,
“The petitioners were fully aware of their marital statuses and should not have entered into a live-in relationship.”
It further observed,
“The petitioner no. 2 (the man) has not taken divorce from his earlier wife. All live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage.”
Recognizing the relationship between the petitioners as a marriage would be unjust to the man’s wife and children. The court emphasized the public significance of marriage as an institution.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized the importance of marriage and family as crucial social institutions that ensure security and play a vital role in raising children.
The court noted,
“Marriage creates moral and legal obligations, including the reciprocal duty of support between spouses and the joint responsibility for raising children born within the marriage.”
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to live with peace, dignity, and honour.
The court stated,
“By allowing such petitions, we encourage wrongdoers and promote bigamy, which is an offense under Section 494 of the IPC, thus violating the rights of the other spouse and children to live with dignity.”
The court highlighted that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity. It criticized the petitioners for bringing disrepute to their families and infringing on their parents’ right to dignity and honour by running away from their homes.
The court also remarked,
“Merely because two people live together for a short period does not justify their claim of a live-in relationship. Directing the police to protect them may indirectly endorse such illicit relationships.”
It stressed that marriage, as a social bond, is fundamental in Indian society, where moral values and customs are crucial for community stability.
India, with its diverse principles, traditions, rituals, and beliefs, derives its legal framework from these cultural foundations.
The court observed,
“Marriage is a sacred relationship with legal implications and high social esteem. Despite our cultural roots, a segment of India has begun adopting Western lifestyles, such as live-in relationships.”
The judge reiterated that marriage holds significant importance in maintaining the moral and ethical fabric of Indian society.