Minor in Live-In Relationship With an Adult Cannot Seek Court Protection; Welfare of Minor Overrides Claimed Freedom of Choice: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Sxxxx and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 3 August 2026

Citation: CRWP-9197-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a minor who is in a live-in relationship with an adult cannot seek the Court’s protection for continuing such an arrangement, as the paramount consideration in cases involving minors is their welfare and well-being. Granting protection in such circumstances would amount to an implicit judicial approval of a live-in relationship involving a minor, contrary to the statutory framework intended to protect children from exploitation, undue influence and imprudent choices.

The Court emphasised that while exercising its protective jurisdiction, it must ensure that its order does not, even indirectly, sanction an arrangement which the law does not permit. Where a minor is involved, the Court’s role is informed by its parens patriae jurisdiction, and the minor’s welfare takes precedence over the claimed freedom to remain in a live-in relationship.

Summary: The petition was filed seeking protection of the life and personal liberty of the petitioners from the private respondents. The petitioners asserted that they had known each other for a considerable period and intended to marry after petitioner No. 1 attained the age of majority. However, petitioner No. 1 was a minor while petitioner No. 2 was an adult.

According to the petitioners, when their relationship became known to their families, the parents of petitioner No. 1 allegedly attempted to compel her to marry another person. It was alleged that when she refused, she was beaten and threatened with death. She thereafter left her parental home on 22 July 2026 and joined petitioner No. 2. The petitioners also alleged that a private respondent subsequently sent a voice note threatening to kill both of them. On these allegations, they approached the High Court seeking police protection against interference with their life and liberty.

The principal legal issue before the Court was whether its protective jurisdiction could be invoked in favour of petitioners living together when one of them was admittedly a minor.

The Court relied upon the Division Bench judgment in Yash Pal and Another v. State of Haryana and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239, which held that a minor in a live-in relationship with an adult, or a live-in relationship where both partners are minors, cannot seek protection from the Court for such a relationship. The Division Bench had reasoned that the law restricts a minor’s legal capacity to make such choices and that granting protection would conflict with the Court’s duty as parens patriae.

The precedent further recognised that the Court’s refusal to protect the live-in arrangement does not mean that a genuine threat to the minor’s life can be disregarded. Where returning the minor to the parents or natural guardian would expose the child to an imminent threat, appropriate protection can instead be secured under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, including placement in a Children’s Home or Nari Niketan until majority where circumstances so warrant.

Justice Sumeet Goel observed that extending the “mantle of protection” to a live-in relationship involving a minor would effectively constitute an implicit approbation of that relationship. Such judicial approval would run contrary to the statutory framework enacted to safeguard minors, whose age makes them particularly susceptible to exploitation, undue influence and imprudent decisions. The Court therefore held that protective jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously so that a judicial order does not indirectly legitimise what the governing legal framework seeks to prevent.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that petitioner No. 1 was born on 11 August 2009 and was approximately 16 years, 11 months and 19 days old when the petition was instituted. Since she was admittedly a minor, the Court concluded that the petitioners could not be granted the relief sought in the writ petition.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the protection petition. At the same time, it directed the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to take requisite steps in accordance with law and directed the Registry to immediately forward a complete copy of the petition’s paper-book along with the order to the Commissioner of Police.

The judgment thus distinguishes between protecting the life and welfare of a minor and granting judicial protection to the minor’s continued live-in arrangement with an adult. The former remains a legal obligation; the latter cannot be granted where it would effectively legitimise a relationship involving a person who has not attained majority.