HC: Judiciary cannot question the decision of a Man & Woman to Live-in together, it has Legal sanctity

  

The Punjab & Haryana High Court Justice Sant Prakash in the case titled Seema Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others gives his views on whether the judiciary can question the decision of a man & woman to live-in-together.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioners, who are of the age of 17 years and 20 years respectively, are seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, who are none other than the immediate family members of petitioner No. 1.

Submission of the Respondent:

The respondent (State) has submitted that the couple seeking protection are not married and according to their own pleadings are in a live-in relationship. The respondent further submitted that the Coordinate Benches have recently dismissed similar matters, where protection was sought by persons who are in a live-in relationship.

High Court’s observation and Judgment:

After listening to the submissions of both the parties, the High Court has held:

"the petitioners have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision. The Supreme Court in its decision rendered in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, 2010 Latest Caselaw 324 SC has held that live in relationship is permissible and the act of two adults living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful, while further holding that the issue of morality and criminality are not co-extensive. If the petitioners have not committed any offence, this court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to. Therefore, with due respect to the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples who are in live in relationship, this court is unable to adopt the same view.”

 The High Court directed respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

The petition was disposed of.

Read Judgement Here:

 

 

 

source ; .latestlaws.com

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure