Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Protection Plea by Two Married Persons in Live-In Relationship, Cites No Cogent Threat and Eight Children Left Behind
Justice Alok Jain rejected a writ seeking police protection for two married petitioners living together, finding no specific threat and calling the petition an abuse of legal process.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed a writ petition filed by two individuals — both of whom are married to other persons — who sought police protection to live together in a live-in relationship. Justice Alok Jain, sitting singly, found that the petitioners had failed to establish any cogent or specific threat to their life or liberty. Beyond that finding, the court held that the petition appeared to be an attempt to legitimise what it described as a promiscuous relationship under the cover of legal process. The writ was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed on 8 September 2026.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The two petitioners, Rasid and another, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions to official respondents — the State of Haryana — to protect their life and liberty from private respondents. Their counsel, Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, submitted that both petitioners are adults and are in a live-in relationship against the wishes of private respondents. On account of this threat perception, he submitted, the petitioners were unable to return to their home and lived under constant fear.
The petitioners had first submitted a representation to authorities on 13 August 2026. Having received no satisfactory response, they approached the High Court.
The State was represented by Ms. Swati Batra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing along with Sub-Inspector Azruddin.
What the State's Inquiry Revealed
The State counsel informed the court that on receipt of the representation, the police had recorded statements of respondent no. 4 — identified as the husband of petitioner no. 2 — as well as respondents no. 9, 10, 11 and 12, who are co-villagers of the petitioners. On the basis of those statements, the State's position was that there was no threat perception.
The inquiry also brought to light a significant factual background. Petitioner no. 1 is already married to respondent no. 13 and has two children from that marriage. Petitioner no. 2 is married to respondent no. 4 and has six children from that wedlock. Together, the two petitioners have eight children from their respective lawful marriages.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Alok Jain identified the threshold requirement for any protection writ: there must be a cogent and specific threat apprehension to the life and liberty of the petitioner. The court found that this threshold was not met. Neither the petition itself nor the representation submitted to respondent no. 2 contained any material substance regarding an alleged threat. The assertions were, in the court's assessment, vague and bald.
The court also addressed the broader context of live-in relationship protection petitions. It observed that the concept of live-in relationships has been misused and abused in recent times, though it kept that larger question open. The specific finding was that this petition was an attempt to “cover up the promiscuous relationship of the petitioners under the guise of legal process,” amounting to an abuse of the process of law.
Justice Jain acknowledged that every citizen is entitled to personal life and liberty and that the State is duty-bound to protect those rights. However, the court held that this right cannot be invoked to permit citizens to undermine the rule of law. The liberty of the petitioners had to be weighed against the right to a dignified life of their lawful spouses and their respective children — eight children in total who, as the court put it, are going to face society for years to come on account of the petitioners' conduct.
The court further observed that granting the protection as claimed would disrupt the entire social fabric of society.
On the Question of a Financial Direction for the Children
Justice Alok Jain noted that the case was, in his view, one where it would have been appropriate to direct the petitioners to deposit a certain sum by way of a fixed deposit receipt in the name of each of the eight children. However, on the specific request of the counsel for the petitioners, no such direction was issued.
Outcome
Finding no merits in the writ petition, Justice Alok Jain dismissed CRWP-10341-2026. The court reiterated, as a general proposition, that the State remains duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. No protection was, however, directed in this case.