Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Protection to Live-in Couple Where One Partner is a Minor; Directs Child Welfare Committee Intervention
Case Name: Simarpreet Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others
Date of Judgment: 01 May 2026
Citation: CRWP-4775-2026
Bench: Justice Subhas Mehla
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that protection under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be granted to a live-in couple where one of the partners is a minor, as doing so would undermine statutory protections under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. However, the Court directed the authorities to safeguard the minor’s welfare by producing her before the Child Welfare Committee and also directed the police to prevent any physical harm to the petitioners without obstructing lawful criminal proceedings against the major partner.
Summary: The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking police protection on the ground that they were residing together in a live-in relationship and were facing threats from their family members.
During the proceedings, it was admitted that petitioner No.1 was below 18 years of age, whereas petitioner No.2 had attained majority. The State opposed the petition, arguing that granting protection would indirectly legitimize an illegal relationship involving a minor and would defeat the object of child protection laws. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that an FIR had already been registered against petitioner No.2 and the minor girl had not yet been traced.
The Court examined the law relating to live-in relationships and observed that although the Supreme Court has recognized relationships in the nature of marriage, one of the essential conditions laid down in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma is that both parties must be of legal age to marry.
Relying further on Independent Thought v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the age of consent is 18 years in all circumstances and that child protection statutes override personal law considerations. Consequently, the Court refused to extend judicial protection to the live-in relationship itself.
Nevertheless, considering the welfare of the minor, the Court directed the petitioners to appear before the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, who was instructed to produce the minor before the Child Welfare Committee for inquiry under Sections 36 and 37 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Committee was directed to determine issues relating to the minor’s custody, safety, accommodation, and overall welfare.
The Court further directed the police authorities to ensure that neither petitioner suffers any physical harm while clarifying that such protection would not prevent the authorities from taking legal action against petitioner No.2 if any offence was made out.
Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the High Court declining to grant police protection to the live-in relationship on the ground that one of the petitioners was a minor. However, keeping in view the welfare of the minor, the Court directed the concerned police authorities to produce her before the Child Welfare Committee for appropriate inquiry and further action under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court also directed the police to ensure that neither petitioner is subjected to physical harm, while making it clear that the order shall not impede the investigation or any criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 2 in accordance with law.