Right to Life and Liberty Prevails: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Protection to Live-in Couple
Case Name: Kulwinder Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: CRWP-9119-2025.
Date of Judgment: 22 August 2025
Bench: Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to individuals in live-in relationships, even where one partner remains legally married. The Court emphasized that protection cannot be denied merely because such relationships lack universal acceptance or social approval. While the legality of the relationship was not adjudicated upon, the Court directed the authorities to ensure that no harm comes to the petitioners’ lives or liberty.
Summary: The petitioners, a young woman born in 2003 and a man born in 2001, approached the Court seeking protection for their life and liberty as they were living in a live-in relationship. Petitioner No.2 was married to another woman and had a child from that marriage, but had chosen to reside with Petitioner No.1. They contended that their relationship had provoked hostility from family members, creating threats to their safety. A representation had already been submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police for protection.
Relying on earlier decisions such as Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana (2021), Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2021), and Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab (2021), the Court reiterated that the right to choose a partner—whether through marriage or live-in arrangement—flows from Article 21. It further referred to the Division Bench decision in Ishrat Bano v. State of Punjab (2021), which clarified that protection must be extended irrespective of whether the relationship itself is legal or not, since the prime consideration remains safeguarding life and liberty.
The Court stressed that in a society governed by the rule of law, no individual may take matters into their own hands merely because they disapprove of another’s personal choices. Protection of life and liberty is fundamental, and once a prima facie threat exists, the State is duty-bound to respond.
Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police (respondent no.2) to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 18.08.2025, assess the threat perception, and take appropriate protective action in accordance with law. The Court clarified that this protection order would not bar the State or any aggrieved person from initiating proceedings against the petitioners if any cause of action arises from their relationship or conduct.