High Court Condemns Protection for Married Individuals in Live-In Relationships: A Stance Against Bigamy

0
Punjab and Haryana High Court

New Delhi: The Indian government is taking steps to address the complexities of live-in relationships, with amendments to existing laws under consideration. For instance, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) proposes mandatory registration of live-in relationships, requiring notification to the parents of both parties involved. This move aims to bring more transparency and regulation to such arrangements.

Court Cautions Against Protecting Live-In Relationships Involving Married Individuals

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed strong reservations about extending legal protection to married individuals engaged in live-in relationships with new partners. Justice Sandeep Moudgil’s bench highlighted that such protection could inadvertently endorse bigamy and encourage unethical behavior.

Court’s Verdict: Upholding Family Dignity and Social Norms

In a recent ruling, the court addressed several petitions, including one from a 40-year-old woman and a 44-year-old man seeking protection due to threats from their families. The man is still legally married, while the woman is divorced, and both have children. The court firmly stated that the petitioners, fully aware of their marital status, could not justify their live-in arrangement as a relationship akin to marriage.

Legal Implications: Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage

The court emphasized that recognizing such relationships as marriages would be unjust to the legal spouse and children of the married individual. It stressed that marriage is a socially significant institution that provides stability and protection for children. Granting protection in such cases could undermine these social structures and violate the rights of the spouse and children to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Judicial Perspective: Balancing Individual Rights and Social Ethics

The High Court underscored the importance of marriage and family as fundamental social institutions. By rejecting the petitions, the court reinforced that endorsing such live-in relationships would promote bigamy, an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It also reaffirmed that everyone has the right to live with peace, respect, and dignity, but this should not come at the cost of ethical and legal norms.

This decision reflects a nuanced approach, balancing individual freedoms with the need to uphold social and legal standards, ensuring that the sanctity of marriage and family is preserved.

Advertisement