Punjab & Haryana High Court grants protection to live-in couple, follows Yash Pal full bench ruling
Case Name: Satnam Singh & Another v. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: October 06, 2025
Citation: CRWP-10874-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposed of the petition filed by a live-in couple seeking protection of life and liberty, directing the Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, to assess their threat perception and take preventive measures as per law. The Court reaffirmed that consenting adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection against threats from family or moral vigilantes, irrespective of marital status. Relying on the Full Bench judgment in Yash Pal v. State of Haryana (2024), the Court reiterated that the State has a constitutional duty to safeguard the lives of individuals choosing to cohabit voluntarily.
Summary: The petitioners, Satnam Singh and his partner, sought protection under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging threats from the woman’s family (private respondents 4 to 10) due to their live-in relationship. Petitioner No.2 was previously married to respondent No.4, with whom she had a child. Due to irreconcilable differences, the parties separated two years earlier, and divorce proceedings were pending. The petitioners claimed that despite filing a written representation dated October 5, 2025, seeking police protection, no action was taken.
Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan referred to the Full Bench ruling in Yash Pal v. State of Haryana (CRWP-4660-2021, CRWP-149-2024 & LPA-968-2021, decided on 09.09.2024), which harmonized divergent single-judge views and affirmed protection rights for adult live-in couples. The Court also cited key Supreme Court precedents — S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600, Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 16 SCC 602, Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368, and Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018) 2 SCC 197 — all emphasizing autonomy, dignity, and freedom of association under Article 21.
Decision: Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, who must act upon the representation dated October 5, 2025, and provide protection if any credible threat is found. The Court clarified that the order should not be construed as validating the relationship itself and that if any misstatement regarding age, marital status, or prohibited relationship is discovered, proceedings may follow as per law.