Live-in couples: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies protection to minors, upholds rights of adults
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that minors in live-in relationship cannot seek legal protection from the courts. The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma made it clear that such relationships, whether between minors or between a minor and an adult, fell outside the scope of legal protection.
Citing statutory limitations on the capacity of minors to make autonomous decisions, the Bench asserted: “A minor in a live-in relationship with an adult or where the live-in relationship is partnered only by minors, the concerned cannot seek the protection from the courts of law. The reason for reaching the conclusion is firmly embedded in the factum that a minor belonging to any religious denomination is incompetent to contract. If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom.”
Elaborating, the Bench asserted the minors were legally restricted from entering into contracts under several statutes, including The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Guardians and Wards Act and the Indian Majority Act.
The Bench added that the legal frameworks prevented minors from making choices, including the poor decision of entering into a live-in relationship, whether with another minor or an adult. Granting protection to minors in such relationships would contradict statutory restrictions that limited a minor’s discretion.
The court observed granting protection to minor partners in live-in relationships, where either one or both were minors, would conflict with the legal restrictions on a minor’s decision-making abilities.
The judgment further clarified that the courts, acting as “parens-patriae” or legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves, were duty-bound to ensure the welfare of minors, which included ensuring that their custody was returned to parents or natural guardians.
The Bench also directed the application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in situations where the court perceived an imminent threat to the life of a minor for placing the child in protective custody, such as a Children’s Home or Nari Niketan until they attained majority.
The Bench, at the same time, upheld the rights of adults in live-in relationships, asserting that they were entitled to legal protection, even if one of the partners was married. The court asserted that the autonomy of individuals, including the right to enter into live-in relationships, was required to be respected, regardless of societal or moral objections.
“The court categorically stated that any tangible threats to such individuals cannot be ignored, and their legal protection must be ensured,” the Bench asserted.
