Can Live-in Couples Directly Seek Police Protection? Punjab & Haryana High Court Answers

Case Name: Simranjeet Kaur & Another v. State of Punjab & Others

Date of Judgment: 03 July 2026

Citation: CRWP No. 7754 of 2026

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a writ petition seeking police protection by persons in a live-in relationship is not maintainable if the petitioners have not first approached the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) or the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). The Court reiterated that even where one of the partners is legally married, the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 remains protected; however, the procedural mechanism laid down in Yashpal v. State of Punjab must be followed before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Summary: The petitioners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions for protection of their lives and liberty, alleging threats from private respondents. Petitioner No. 1 was a married woman who claimed that she had left her matrimonial home due to cruelty and was residing in a live-in relationship with Petitioner No. 2. They contended that they faced a genuine apprehension of danger and sought immediate police protection through a writ petition.

While considering the matter, the Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Yashpal v. State of Punjab, wherein it was held that persons in live-in relationships, including those where one partner is already married, cannot be denied protection of their fundamental right to life merely because of the nature of their relationship. However, the Court also noted that Yashpal established a specific procedure requiring such individuals to first seek assistance from the District Legal Services Authority or the State Human Rights Commission before approaching the High Court.

Since there was no material on record to show that the petitioners had availed either of these statutory remedies, the Court held that the present writ petition was premature and therefore not maintainable.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Legal Services Authority or the State Human Rights Commission for appropriate relief in accordance with law.