Read Time: 06 minutes

Dismissing a couple’s protection plea with Rs. 25,000 cost, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that, 'Two adults merely living together for a few days does not mean that they are truly in a live-in relationship.'

The single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj clarified that apart from other factors, for such a living arrangement to be a live-in relationship, the length of live-in status should be such which would make it akin to a marital relation, however, it may vary from case to case. 

In the instant matter, the Bench noted that the petition had been filed without a valid cause of action as bald averments were made regarding the couple’s apprehension that there was a threat to their life and liberty.

The couple (18-yr-old girl and 20-yr-old boy) had come to the High Court apprehending that there was a threat to their life and liberty from the girl's parents as the girl's family wasn't approving of their relationship and she was being forced to marry someone else.

During the hearing of the matter, upon enquiry regarding the couple’s live-in status, the counsel for the petitioners had informed the Court that the couple had started living together in a live-in relationship only from November 24 and for the time being they are residing in a hotel.

It also came on record that no complaint has been made so far against the petitioner couple by the private respondents i.e. girl’s family members.

Taking note of the facts of the matter, the High Court remarked that sometimes in pursuit of absolute freedom, exuberant youngsters leave their parents’ company to live with the person of their choice and in order to get the seal of the court to their alliance, they file petitions for protection by posing threat to their life and liberty.

The Court added that of course, the aggrieved persons can avail the alternative remedy, but a large number of petitions land in the lap of the High Court as according to the writ petitioners, the alternative remedy is less felicitous.

The Court further stressed that majority of such petitions contain formal symbolic averments, grounds with imaginary cause of action, and are rarely founded upon 'actual' or 'real' existence of threat, and these types of cases consume considerable time of the Court, that too at the cost of many other cases waiting in line for hearing.

Therefore, observing thus, the High Court dismissed the couple’s writ petition with cost. The bench also added that if the couple fails to deposit the cost within a period of two months, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district shall ensure the recovery and deposit of the costs, in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Himani and another vs State of Haryana and others