Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Protection to Live-In Couple Where Girl Is Minor; Directs Production Before Child Welfare Committee
Case Name: Davinder Verma @ Sunny & Another v. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: CRWP-11728-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant police protection to a live-in couple on the ground that one of the petitioners, a 17-year-old girl, was a minor. Justice Subhas Mehla held that extending protection in such cases would amount to indirectly legitimizing an illegal and immoral relationship, contrary to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court, however, issued directions for the minor’s safety and welfare under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, directing the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to produce her before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) for appropriate action.
Summary: The petitioners a 24-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl approached the Court seeking protection of life and liberty, claiming threats from the girl’s family due to their live-in relationship. The Court noted that while Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty, such protection cannot extend to relationships that violate statutory safeguards meant to protect minors. Referring to D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2014) 1 SCC 244, Justice Mehla reiterated that a “live-in relationship in the nature of marriage” is recognized in law only when both partners are of legal marriageable age.
The Court also cited Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800, where the Supreme Court declared that the age of consent is 18 years in all circumstances, even within marriage. Justice Mehla observed that child protection laws—including the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, POCSO Act, 2012, and Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 represent the State’s compelling interest in safeguarding minors from abuse and exploitation, overriding personal law or consent-based arguments.
Decision: The Court declined to extend protection under Article 21 to the couple and directed that within seven days, the petitioners must appear before the SSP, who shall ensure the production of the minor (petitioner No.2) before the Child Welfare Committee. The CWC shall conduct an inquiry under Section 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act and pass appropriate orders regarding the minor’s custody, safety, and well-being. The SSP was also instructed to ensure protection against physical harm while taking lawful steps if the adult partner was found to have committed an offence under applicable laws.