Court Observes Abuse of Legal Process in Misusing Live-in Relationship Claims, Emphasizes Balancing Individual Rights with Social Order
In a significant judgment delivered on September 8, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Alok Jain, dismissed a petition filed by Rasid and another petitioner seeking protection of their life and liberty while living in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their respective spouses and families.
The petitioners approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming that they faced threats to their life and liberty due to their relationship, which was against the wishes of private respondents. They contended that such threats prevented them from returning home and caused them continuous fear for their safety. Despite these assertions, the court found that the petitioners failed to present any concrete or specific evidence demonstrating a real threat to their lives.
The State of Haryana, represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Swati Batra, submitted that investigations following the petitioners' representation revealed no credible threat perception. Statements from the petitioners' lawful spouses and local villagers further corroborated the absence of any danger. The court noted that petitioner no.1 was legally married and had two children, while petitioner no.2 was married with six children. The court underscored the importance of considering the welfare and dignity of these children and lawful spouses while adjudicating such matters.
Justice Jain observed that while the right to life and liberty is sacrosanct, it cannot be invoked to undermine the rule of law or disrupt societal norms. The judgment highlighted a recent trend where the concept of live-in relationships has been misused to cloak promiscuous conduct under the guise of legal protection. The court characterized the petition as an abuse of the legal process aimed at seeking shelter for such relationships without legitimate grounds.
Balancing the individual rights of the petitioners with societal interests, the court emphasized that the rights of lawful spouses and children must be weighed equally against the petitioners' claims. The absence of any cogent threat led the court to dismiss the petition to prevent potential disruption to the social fabric.
Interestingly, while the court acknowledged that this could have been an appropriate case to direct the deposit of a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) for the benefit of the children involved, it refrained from issuing such directions considering the petitioners' counsel's request.
The court closed by reaffirming the State's duty to protect the life and liberty of all citizens, cautioning against misuse of constitutional protections for personal convenience or to flout societal and legal norms.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder that the Indian judiciary will carefully scrutinize claims made under the garb of constitutional rights, ensuring that such claims are supported by specific and credible evidence and do not contravene the interests of lawful family members or the social order.
Bottom Line:
Petitioners in live-in relationships cannot seek protection of life and liberty on vague and bald assertions without demonstrating any specific and cogent threat apprehensions.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21, Article 226
Rasid v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979259
