'Abuse Of Process Of Law': P&H High Court Refuses Protection To Live-In Couple, Notes Both Partners Are Already Married & Have Children
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a man and woman, both already married to other people with children from their respective marriages, seeking protection of life and liberty for their live-in relationship, holding that the petition amounted to an attempt to cover up a "promiscuous relationship" under the guise of legal process.Justice Alok Jain...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a man and woman, both already married to other people with children from their respective marriages, seeking protection of life and liberty for their live-in relationship, holding that the petition amounted to an attempt to cover up a "promiscuous relationship" under the guise of legal process.
Justice Alok Jain observed,
"Strangely in the recent times, it has been found that concept of live-in-relationship is being misused and abused; however that question is kept open but the fundamental pre-requisite for seeking protection of life and liberty is that there has to be some cogent specific threat apprehensions to the life and liberty of the petitioners. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to establish any such apprehension. The petition appears to be an attempt to cover up the promiscous relationship of the petitioners under the guise of legal process, thereby amounting to an abuse of the process of law."
The Court further clarified that, there is no denial of the fact that every citizen is entitled to personal life and liberty and the State is duty bound to protect life and liberty of the citizens but this right cannot be invoked to permit the citizens to undermine the rule of law.
"The life and liberty of the petitioners have to be weighed equally with the rights of dignified life of the other immediate family members, particularly their lawful spouses and their respective children. Apart from vague and bald assertions, neither the petition nor the representation submitted to respondent no.2 demonstrates any material substance regarding the alleged threat," it added.
The petitioners, both adults, approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking directions to official respondents to protect their life and liberty from private respondents, claiming they were in a live-in relationship opposed by their families and faced threats as a result, leaving them unable to return home. They stated they had submitted a representation to the authorities on 13.08.2026 before approaching the Court
Significantly, the State's counsel pointed out that petitioner was already married to respondent (No.13), with two children from that marriage, while petitioner No.2 was married to respondent (No.4,) with six children from that marriage — meaning the couple's live-in relationship potentially affected the future of eight children in total.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that being in the relationship against their families' wishes, the petitioners faced threat and constant fear, and were entitled to protection of life and liberty.
The State submitted that pursuant to the petitioners' representation, statements of respondent No.4 (petitioner No.2's husband) and co-villagers (respondents No.9 to 12) had been recorded, and no threat perception was found to exist.
The Court noted it considered this a fit case to direct deposit of a sum as FDR in the name of each of the eight children, but refrained from issuing such a direction in view of a request made by counsel for the petitioners.
The Court further observed that granting the protection sought would "disrupt the entire social fabric of society."
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it, while clarifying that the State remains duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of its citizens generally.
Case Title: Rasid and another v. State of Haryana and others
Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. (along with S.I.-Azruddin)