High Court upholds autonomy of live-in couples, says they must be protected
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today called for devising alternative mechanisms for addressing threats faced by runaway, married and other live-in couples, while recommending legal and rights intervention in such matters. The assertions came as the Bench noticed that the police agencies were overburdened and deployment of escorts with the couple would only add to the pressure.
For preventing further overloading of the legal system, the court made it clear that the alternative mechanisms for addressing the threat perception could include encouraging couples to initially seek support from the District Legal Services Authorities, where para-legal volunteers or counsellors could mediate.
The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma added that the State Human Rights Commissions were also required to be accessible to handle threats from moral vigilantes or relatives. "Effective protection mechanisms should be devised, involving legal services and human rights bodies to address threats without immediate recourse to writ courts," the Bench said.
The high court has reinforced the need to uphold the autonomy of individuals in live-in relationships, even when one of the partners was married. It asserted that socio-moral objections did not diminish the necessity for protection against threats.
"Despite socio-moral objections, protection must be granted to live-in couples to preserve their autonomy," the Bench asserted, while issuing the comprehensive directive regarding the protection of live-in couples, particularly when one partner was married or when threats arise from external parties.
Outlining key inferences and mechanisms to ensure the safety and rights of individuals in such relationships, the Bench asserted that live-in couples facing tangible threats from family members or moral vigilantes were entitled to protection. "When one of the live-in partners is married, and tangible threats arise, the couple is entitled to protection to safeguard their relationship," the Bench observed.
The court further noted that assaults—whether mental, physical, public, or private—by external parties undermined the principles of personal autonomy established by the apex court. "The autonomy to express, including bodily autonomy, is compromised by such assaults. Protection must be granted to safeguard the integrity of the relationship against these threats," it stated.
Referring to cases where a live-in partner was a minor, the court asserted that the parents must continue to fulfil their responsibilities, providing both financial support and emotional care. The court stated: "The protection granted to live-in couples should be conditioned upon the well-being of minor children, ensuring their proper care and emotional support."
