The Punjab and Haryana High Court highlighted that a portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship. (AI-generated image)Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while rejecting the petition, held that simply living together for a few days is not sufficient to establish a genuine live-in relationship, particularly when the parties themselves admitted that they intended to marry only in the future. The court observed that granting police protection in such circumstances could indirectly amount to judicial approval of an “illicit relationship”.“The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners, by running away from their parental home, are not only bringing bad name to the family but also are violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour,” the June 5 order read. Justice Sandeep Moudgil mentioned that our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning.‘Marriage a holy relationship’The court highlighted that a portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship. It was further pointed out that India is a country with a diverse set of principles, traditions, rituals, and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. It was added that marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem.The court mentioned that our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, the court also pointed out that as time has passed, society has started to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. The court added that under Article 21 of the Constitution, every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour. It was further mentioned that every person has a right to have his reputation preserved.The court added that Article 21 of the Constitution places fundamental rights on a much higher pedestal and it must be preserved since it is sacred under the Constitutional scheme. It was added that there are various cases where the court has refused to grant the protection to the couples living in a live-in relationship.The court also focused that the basis of such denial was that if such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed.The court noted that the man is yet to attain the marriageable age and will marry the woman thereafter. We will get married soonIt was claimed that petitioners are major, being more than 18 years of age and are unmarried. It was claimed that both the petitioners like and love each other and want to get married and are, for the present, living together in a ‘ live-in relationship.’ Also Read | Husband in Germany, wife locks up elderly in-laws’ property: High court evicts her to restore rental incomeIt was added that the families of the women are interfering in their life and harassing them and are pressuring her to leave the company of the man. It was also added that the woman’s family has warned that if she did not leave the man, they will implicate him in a false case. It was alleged that the petitioners want to live together till they perform marriage and, as such, have sent a representation to the superintendent of police on June 1. Advocate Komal Sidhu represented the petitioners, whereas additional advocate general Rajiv Verma represented the state. Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More Tags:Punjab and Haryana High Court