Can Live-In Couples Seek Police Protection Without Fulfilling Legal Pre-Conditions?: P&H High Court Answers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a couple seeking protection from alleged harassment by their relatives over their live-in relationship, holding that such protection cannot be granted in the absence of fulfillment of legally recognized conditions for live-in relationship. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 196]

Justice Sandeep Moudgil noted that the petitioners were living together in live-in-relationship but the petitioner No.2 (boy) is yet to attain the marriageable age and will marry petitioner No.1 (girl) thereafter.

In this backdrop it was observed,

"The pre-requisites for a live-in-relationship as held by the Apex Court in "D. Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal" (2010) 10 SCC 469" is that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or qualitied to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.  Further the same view of this Court has been reiterated by various other Benches wherein the Court has refused to grant the protection to the couples living in live-in-relationship on the ground that it such protection as claimed, is granted the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed...

Consequently, in view of the above discussions and reading of the above clearly indicates that to attach legitimate sanctity to such a relation, certain conditions are required to be fulfilled by such partners"

Bringing Bad Name To Family 

The Court further observed that Article 21 also includes right to dignity of parents which is violated by the couple as they ran away from their parental home.

The bench said under Article 21 of the Constitution each and every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour. “Moreover, every person has a right to have his reputation preserved.”

"It is a jus in rem, a right good against all in the world. Article 21 of the Constitution of India places Fundamental Rights on a much higher pedestal. It must be preserved since it is sacred under the Constitutional Scheme," it added.

"India is a country with a diverse set of principles traditions, rituals, and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, the society started to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted Modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship," the court added. 

The Court added, 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 is not only bringing bad name to the family but also is violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour.

The petition was filed seeking a direction to the police authorities to not harass the couple at the instance of their relatives and to allow them to live together peacefully in a live-in relationship.

The petitioners contended that both of them are major and are in a consensual relationship. It was submitted that they intend to solemnize marriage in future and are currently residing together. However, their relationship was opposed by respondents, who allegedly threatened them and sought to separate them, including by implicating one of the petitioners in false criminal cases.

The petitioners had also submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Patiala seeking protection.

In the present case, the Court noted that one of the petitioners had not yet attained marriageable age, which itself disentitled them from seeking protection under the claimed legal framework.

The Court further observed that merely residing together for a few days, based on bald assertions, cannot establish a legally recognizable live-in relationship. Granting protection in such cases would amount to indirectly endorsing relationships that do not meet legal standards.

It cautioned that indiscriminate grant of protection in such matters could disturb the "social fabric".

The court said that merely because the two persons are living together for few days, their claim of live-in relationship based "upon bald averment" may not be enough to hold that they are truly in a live-in relationship and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship.

It thus said that court cannot pass orders under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of life to all citizens, but such freedom has to be within the ambit of law.

Holding that the petitioners failed to establish a case warranting interference, the Court dismissed the plea.

Ms. Komal Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab

Title: X AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS