"LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP NOT A NEW PHENOMENA BUT SOCIETY HAS NOT EVOLVE TO ACCEPT IT WITHOUT RAISING EYEBROWS TO SUCH RELATIONSHIP" P&H HC
A single bench comprising of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj was handling a protection plea filed by a boy and a girl aged 18 and 19 years respectively who had met on social media platform Facebook and decided to marry each other.
Observing that both the petitioners have been above the age of 18 years, however, the boy was not of marriageable age, the Court observed thus:
"It is evident that both the petitioners are above the age of 18 years, however, the boy is not of marriageable age. The live-in-relationship nowadays is not a new phenomena but the society has not evolved to the extent of accepting such relationship without raising the eyebrows to such relationship."
Furthermore, it stated:
"Thus, time and again Hon'ble Apex Court as well as various other High Courts have accepted the live-in-relationship and have come to the rescue of the couple as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though issue raised by the petitioners in the petition is qua their live in-relationship and their fundamental right to their life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India but the Court is concerned only with their right under Article 21 of the Constitution."
It became the case of the petitioners that they'll marry each other as and when they'll attain the marriageable age. It was submitted that the girl's mother and father wanted her to marry another boy and when she had attempted to steer her family members, they did not budge.
In view of this, it was said that a representation was moved by the couple to Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh for granting them protection, however, no action was taken pursuant to it.
Relying at the judgement of the Supreme Court in Nandakumar and another Vs. The State of Kerala and others in which the Court had stated that live-in relationship' is regarded by the Legislature under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court ordered thus:
"There is no reason not to address the grievances raised by the petitioners qua the same. As a result, Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh is directed to take into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioners in the representation (Annexure P-6) and verify the threat perception if any to the petitioners."
Accordingly, the petition became disposed of.