Punjab and Haryana High Court: Amol Rattan Singh, J., held that since adultery is not an offence, no offence would be committed by a married person by him/her being in live-in even when his/her divorce petition is pending before the Court.
By the instant petition, the petitioners had sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass them. Noticeably, petitioner 2 and respondent 4 having earlier been married, petitioner 2 filed a divorce petition, which was dismissed and appeal against which was still pending. However, it was observed by the court that there were no chances of reconciliation.
The petitioners submitted that they were in a live-in relationship with each other and were in apprehension of danger to their life and liberty at the hands of respondents 4 to 6, with the SHO, Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana, harassing them at the instance of the said respondents.
Differing with the judgement of Allahabad High Court in Aneeta v. State of U.P., WRIT – C No. 14443 of 2021 (dated 29-07-2021), wherein, it had dismissed the petition filed by live-in couple with exemplary cost of Rs. 500 by holding that “without obtaining a divorce, a spouse is not entitled to protection qua a relationship with another person”; the Bench stated that prima facie, no offence would be committed by the petitioners, they being adults in a live-in-relationship with each other, whether or not any divorce petition was pending before the court.
Considering the judgement of Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v.Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, by which the Supreme Court had struck down Section 497 (adultery) of the IPC as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, the Bench directed the police officials concerned to ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is duly protected at the hands of respondents 4 to 6, as also at the hands of the SHO. The Bench warned of strict actions in case the petitioners are again harassed by the SHO on account of any live-in-relationship that they have with each other. [Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, CRWP-7874 of 2021, decided on 03-09-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance by:
For the Petitioners: Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate
For State of Punjab: Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab
