“Protection Plea Cannot Be Used to Cover Up a Promiscuous Relationship”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Relief to Married Live-In Partners, Cites Rights of Their Spouses and Eight Children
Case Name: Rasid and Another v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2026
Citation: CRWP-10341-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Jain
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a person seeking protection of life and liberty must disclose a cogent, specific and credible apprehension of danger. Vague and unsubstantiated assertions of threat, whether made in the petition or in the representation submitted to the police, do not justify the issuance of protection directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that the constitutional right to life and personal liberty cannot be invoked as a device to secure judicial approval for conduct that undermines the rule of law or adversely affects the legitimate rights of other immediate family members. While every citizen is entitled to protection of life and liberty, the petitioners’ rights must be balanced against the right to a dignified life of their lawful spouses and children.
On the facts, petitioner No. 1 was already married and had two children, while petitioner No. 2 was married to another person and had six children. The Court found that the petition appeared to be an attempt to cover up what it described as a “promiscuous relationship” under the guise of invoking the legal process.
The Court further remarked that the concept of live-in relationships appeared, in recent times, to be susceptible to misuse and abuse. It nevertheless kept the broader legal question concerning such alleged misuse open and decided the petition principally on the absence of a specific threat and the competing rights of the petitioners’ spouses and eight children.
The Court clarified that the State continues to remain duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. However, the general obligation of the State does not mean that a writ court must issue protection directions in every case where the alleged threat is unsupported by material particulars.
Summary: The petitioners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the official respondents to protect their life and liberty from the private respondents.
They claimed to be majors residing in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their families. According to the petitioners, opposition to their relationship had created a threat to their safety, due to which they were unable to return home and were living under constant fear. They stated that a representation seeking protection had been submitted to the authorities on 13 August 2026 before they approached the High Court.
The State informed the Court that the police had acted upon the representation and recorded the statements of respondent No. 4, who was the husband of petitioner No. 2, as well as respondent Nos. 9 to 12, who were co-villagers. On the basis of this exercise, the State submitted that no threat perception had been found.
The State also brought to the Court’s attention that petitioner No. 1 was already married to respondent No. 13 and had two children from that marriage. Petitioner No. 2 was similarly married to respondent No. 4 and had six children from her existing marriage. Therefore, the relationship between the petitioners directly affected their respective spouses and a total of eight children.
The High Court observed that the future and dignity of the children could not be ignored while examining the petitioners’ claim for constitutional protection. The children would have to face the social consequences arising from the conduct of their parents, and their interests formed a relevant consideration in balancing the competing claims before the Court.
The Court described it as strange that the concept of a live-in relationship was increasingly being misused and abused. It nevertheless refrained from finally deciding the wider legal question concerning the status or permissible scope of such relationships.
The Court identified the absence of a specific and credible threat as the fundamental deficiency in the case. Neither the writ petition nor the representation submitted to the authorities contained material particulars capable of establishing a genuine apprehension of danger to the petitioners’ life or liberty. Their assertions were found to be vague and bald.
Although the Court acknowledged that every citizen enjoys the fundamental right to life and personal liberty and that the State is obligated to protect those rights, it held that constitutional protection cannot be invoked in a manner that disregards the rule of law and the dignity of lawful spouses and children.
The Court observed that granting the protection sought in the particular circumstances would disrupt the social fabric. It also considered the possibility of directing the petitioners to deposit a specified amount in fixed deposits in the names of each of their children. However, in view of the request made by counsel for the petitioners, no such financial direction was ultimately issued.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the protection petition after finding no cogent or specific material demonstrating a genuine threat to the petitioners’ life and liberty. It held that the petition appeared to have been filed to secure legal cover for their relationship despite both petitioners being married to other persons and having eight children between them.
The Court did not issue the contemplated direction requiring the petitioners to create fixed deposits in favour of their children. It nevertheless clarified that the State remains duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of all its citizens.