Tanu And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors

CRWP-14116-2025 1

121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-14116-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 31.12.2025

TANU AND ANR

....PETITIONERS VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ***** Present: Mr. Lovish Rattan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India for directing the official respondents no.2 & 3 to

protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents

No.4 to 8.

2. The factual matrix of the present case unfolds as under:- The

Petitioner No.1 is major and aged 21 years, and Petitioner No.2 is aged 30 years.

Both the petitioners are presently cohabiting without having solemnized

marriage with each other. It is relevant to state that Petitioner No.1 is legally

married to Respondent No.4, who has persistently refused to grant her a divorce

despite matrimonial disputes. The petitioners developed mutual affection after

Respondent No.4 forcibly ousted Petitioner No.1 from her matrimonial home.

1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 03-01-2026 01:07:50 ::: CRWP-14116-2025 2

Thereafter, the petitioners decided to reside together in a live-in relationship.

However, respondents has been extending grave and life-threatening

intimidation to the petitioners on account of their relationship. In this regard, the

petitioners submitted a representation dated 20.12.2025 to the police authorities,

which is annexed herewith as Annexure P-3.

3. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that

India is a democratic nation governed by a well-defined social and legal

framework. Marriage has traditionally been regarded as an important social

institution in Indian society. Across communities and religions, marriage is

viewed as a sacred bond carrying moral, social, and legal obligations. It is

considered a foundation for family life and social stability, and Indian culture

places significant importance on values, ethics, and social discipline.

4. Marriage is not merely a private arrangement between two

individuals, it has public significance and legal consequences. The institution of

marriage and family plays a vital role in ensuring social order, providing

security, and facilitating the upbringing of children. Marriage creates reciprocal

duties between spouses, including mutual support and joint responsibility

towards children born out of the wedlock.

5. However, with the passage of time and changing social dynamics,

certain sections of society have adopted modern lifestyles, including live-in

relationships, which differ from traditional Indian cultural norms.

6. The Supreme Court in "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)

10 SCC 469" has laid down specific conditions for recognizing a live-in

relationship. It was held that the parties must present themselves to society as

being akin to spouses, must be of legal age to marry, and must be otherwise

2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 03-01-2026 01:07:52 ::: CRWP-14116-2025 3

qualified to enter into a legal marriage.

7. Further, the no law abiding citizen who is already married can seek

protection of this Court for illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of

social fabric of this country. The sanctity of marriage pre-supposes divorce. If

the petitioner no. 1 has any difference with her husband/ respondent no. 4, she

has to first move to the court for getting separated from her spouse as per law

applicable to her. This court does not permit the parties to such illegality as

tomorrow petitioners may convey that we have sanctified their illicit relations.

Live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of social fabric of this Country and

directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to

such illicit relations.

8. In the present case, it is undisputed that Petitioner No.1 is legally

married and her marriage subsists in the eyes of law, as no decree of divorce has

been granted. A subsisting legal marriage creates binding obligations, and

entering into another relationship during its continuance cannot be granted

legitimacy or protection under constitutional jurisdiction.

9. From the above discussion, it is clear that certain essential

conditions must be satisfied to accord legal recognition to a live-in relationship.

Mere cohabitation for a short period, based solely on bald assertions, is

insufficient to establish such a relationship. Granting police protection in such

circumstances would amount to indirectly validating an illicit relationship,

which is impermissible. While Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right

to life and personal liberty, such rights must be exercised within the framework

of law.

10. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to exercise its

3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 03-01-2026 01:07:52 ::: CRWP-14116-2025 4

extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the present matter. The petition is, therefore,

dismissed.

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 31.12.2025 JUDGE Meenu

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 03-01-2026 01:07:52 :::