In a recent judgment that is stirring both support and discomfort, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the police to provide protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, noting that their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution extends even if one of them is already married.
What Happened
The case, Divya & Another v. State of Haryana & Others (CRWP-11046-2025), was heard by Justice Rupinderjit Chahal on October 14, 2025. The petitioners, a 22-year-old woman named Divya (who is already married and has a child) and a 24-year-old unmarried man, Karan argued that they are living together in a consensual live-in relationship but face serious threats to their life and liberty from their families.
The court accepted their plea, stating that even if one partner is married, they are not automatically disqualified from seeking protection if there’s a “genuine threat” to their safety.
Key Legal Reasoning
1. Article 21 and the Right to Choose
Justice Chahal reaffirmed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the freedom to choose one’s partner.
2. Prima-Facie Threat Is Enough
Drawing on earlier precedent, the court held that it need only be prima-facie (at first glance) satisfied that the couple may be at risk that is enough to justify orders for their protection.
3. No Immunity From Legal Consequences
Importantly, the court clarified that its protection order does not shield the couple from any legal proceedings that may arise out of their relationship.
4. Social Disapproval ≠ Legal Disqualification
The court explicitly rejected the notion that moral or social disapproval can override constitutional rights: “moral or social disapproval cannot override constitutional safeguards.”
5. Live-In Relationships Are Not Illegal
Echoing past rulings, the court reiterated that live-in relationships do not amount to a criminal offence.
6. Duty Towards Children
In earlier decisions, the High Court has also stressed that if any partner has children (even from another relationship), their care and well-being should not be ignored, the court should balance personal liberty with responsibilities.
Why This Is Significant and Problematic
Social Change Under the Hood
The very fact that such a case reached the High Court, and that the court acknowledged that live-in relationships are now not just an urban phenomenon, signals a slow but perceptible shift. As the court noted, the idea is “percolating into small towns and villages,” showing growing social acceptance.
Judicial Tension Over Morality
Still, the ruling does not come without tension. The court’s willingness to provide protection while stopping short of condoning the relationship legally reveals a balancing act: uphold constitutional rights, but avoid signaling moral approval for non-marital unions, especially when one party is already married.
Risk of Encouraging Bigamy?
Critics are likely to point to earlier judgments by the same High Court (and others) where protection was denied in similar circumstances because granting it “would encourage bigamy.” This contradictory stance, protection in some cases, refusal in others raises questions about consistency in judicial reasoning
Slippery Slope for the Institution of Marriage
For conservative critics, there’s a fear that such rulings chip away at the sanctity of marriage: if courts protect live-in relationships even when marriage already exists, does that not weaken the institution of marriage itself?
Administrative Burden & Policing
By ordering the police to assess threat perceptions and provide protection, the court is effectively making law enforcement arbiters of intimate personal relationships. That raises practical challenges: how will police balance protection with not becoming enforcers of one partner’s decision to defy family or legal norms?
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision is progressive it strengthens the constitutional shield around personal liberty, even in messy, socially contentious relationships. Yet, it’s not wholly liberal: the court treads carefully, refusing to grant a blanket endorsement of live-in relationships when bigamy, children, and social disapproval are involved.
In a way, the judgment reflects the judiciary’s cautious pragmatism, it neither fully embraces moral change nor ignores it. But critics may argue that by chopping at the edges, the court is failing to confront head-on the deeper tension between personal choice and traditional legal/social structures.
