The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to issue directions to the State to grant police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship since the woman was already married to another person.
Justice Sant Parkash said that the woman’s alliance with the man was an unholy one.
“This Court feels no hesitation to say that petitioner No.1 has entered into an unholy alliance with petitioner No.2,” the Court recorded in its order.
The first petitioner was married to one of the respondents against her wishes and the two had a child out of that wedlock. Since she was unhappy with the marriage, she fell in love with petitioner No. 2.
She claimed that while she was residing in her matrimonial home, her husband used to harass her mentally and physically.
Therefore, she left and began residing with the second petitioner in a live-in relationship.
It was brought to the Court’s attention that the husband and his family members began threatening the couple to end their relationship and the petitioners feared harm at the hands of the respondents.
They, therefore, made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Jind on August 13 but no action was taken prompting them to approach the High Court.
However, Justice Sant Parkash found that the petition deserved to be dismissed noting that since the first petitioner had not gotten legal divorce from her husband and the alliance between the two petitioners was, therefore, “unholy”.
Further, the Court observed that no material was placed on record by the petitioners to support the bald allegations against the respondents.
Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
The Petitioners were represented by advocate Jarnail S Saneta.
Just last week, the Rajasthan High Court had refused to extend police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship noting that since the woman was already married, granting protection to the couple may indirectly amount to giving the Court’s assent to such illicit relations.
Even the Allahabad High Court had recently turned a couple in a live-in relationship away because the woman was already married and the Court cannot, therefore, permit “illegality”.
Read Order here: