The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking police protection filed by a minor girl and her major partner, holding that granting protection in such cases would amount to implicitly sanctioning relationship involving a minor—something the statutory framework expressly prohibits.

Justice Sumeet Goel dismissing the plea said, "Ergo, in adjudicating upon a petition for protection wherein minors are involved in a live-in-relationship, the Court must remain mindful of the fact that the paramount consideration remains the welfare and well being of the minor in question. To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live-in arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established statutory framework designed to shield the young and impressionable from exploitation and moral peril."

The Court added that, "the law, in its sagacity, has circumscribed the liberties of minors, recognizing their tender age and the consequential susceptibility to undue influence and imprudent choices. By legislative fiat, provisions exist to interdict any form of abuse or impropriety that might arise from the unfettered discretion of those yet to attain the full facilities of maturity."

It emphasised that, "any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor's involvement in such a relationship would not only be antithetical to the legislative intent but would also undermine the very bulwark erected to preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence."

Thus, the Court clarified that, "while exercising its protective jurisdiction, must treat with measured caution, ensuring that its decree does not, even by implication, countenance that which the law expressly deprecates."

The Court further held that the law, "in its sagacity, has circumscribed the liberties of minors, recognising their tender age and the consequential susceptibility to undue influence and imprudent choices, and that any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor's involvement in such a relationship would not only be antithetical to legislative intent but would also undermine the very bulwark erected to preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence."

The two petitioners , a minor girl, and a major male working as a driver, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the State authorities to provide them police protection and to restrain the private respondents (the minor's family members) from interfering in their personal lives and liberty.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had known each other for a long time and intended to marry upon the minor attaining majority. When the petitioners informed their families of their relationship, the parents of the minor girl allegedly forced her to marry someone.

Upon her refusal, she was beaten and threatened with death. Owing to this apprehension, the petitioner left her parental home and joined petitioner No. 2. It was further submitted that on the same date, respondent No. 6 sent a voice note threatening to kill both petitioners. The petitioners had also approached private respondents through common relatives and respectable persons, but the private respondents allegedly wanted to eliminate them.

The Court at the outset referred to the Division Bench judgment in Yash Pal and Another v. State of Haryana and Others, which had held that a minor in a live-in relationship with an adult or where both partners are minors cannot seek protection from Courts of law, as a minor is incompetent to contract and has no capacity to make such choices.

The Division Bench had held that the freedom of minors to make choices is ably fettered by statutes such as The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Indian Majority Act. It had further held that the solemn duty of the Court as parens patriae requires that the custody of the minor be retrieved to the parents and natural guardian, and that if an imminent threat to the minor's life is perceived, the Court may resort to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, directing the minor to stay at a Children Home or Nari Niketan till attaining majority.

Applying the above ratio to the facts, the Court observed that extending the mantle of protection in such circumstances would constitute an implicit approbation of a live-in arrangement involving a minor, a proposition repugnant to the established statutory framework.

Noting that it was the admitted case of the petitioners the girl was born on 11.08.2009 and was aged approximately 16 years, 11 months and 19 days at the time of institution of the petition, the Court concluded that she is undisputedly a minor and that the reliefs sought cannot be afforded.

Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Paras, Advocate for the petitioners.

Title: SXXXX v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read order