Synopsis: The Court also made it clear that parents cannot force their adult children to live a life on their terms. Any adult person is entitled to live his or her life as he or she thinks fit.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held in an order of significant import that the life and liberty of a live-in couple must be secured even if one of the partners has not attained a marriageable age.
Therefore, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Alka Sarin observed that society cannot determine how an individual should live his or her life, especially when persons are important.
Justice Sarin ruled that since the right to choose a partner is a facet of the right to life, the life and liberty of a live-in couple should be protected.
A petition filed by a couple who alleged that they were being harassed and threatened by the family of the woman because of their relationship, was considered by the Court. As the man had not yet reached the minimum marriageable age, the two decided to marry each other, but wanted to be in a live-in relationship. Furthermore, both were majors.
The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan KM, commonly known as the Hadiya case, to emphasise that the right to life under the Constitution has been guaranteed to every individual, with the choice of a partner being an important aspect of the same.
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that there were no legally justifiable reasons for the family and relatives of a live-in couple to object to their relationship.
While the Court did not comment on the merits or legal validity of the relationship between the petitioners, it directed the police to take the necessary steps and to consider the representation of the couple for security purposes.
The failure to attain the minimum marriageable age was not an impediment to seeking protection of life and liberty, reasoned the Court, particularly since both were majors.
The Court also made it clear that parents have been unable to impose conditions for how to conduct their lives to their adult children and that individuals were entitled to live as they chose if they did so within the contours of the law.
The Court emphasised, however, that it had not ruled on the legal validity of the relationship at question.
However, the Court pointed out that it is clear that that order is neither an expression of opinion on the veracity of the content of the present petition nor a stamp of the Court on the validity of the alleged live-in relationship between the petitioners, and that it has no effect on any other civil or criminal proceedings instituted or pending against them.
The petition was dismissed under these terms.