Within the last few years, the socio-legal scenario in connection with live-in relationships has changed considerably within India. The higher judiciary of the nation tends to stress that personal liberty, which is secured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, ensures that the individuals who decide to live together without being married are within their rights. Nevertheless, there is a legal conundrum that crops up in connection with such cases where one of the persons involved is a minor. Does the “life and liberty” include a minor running away from her/his parents’ objections to be in a live-in relationship? You can visit the best High Court lawyer in Chandigarh.
The Case: Finding a Shelter under Article 21
The matter came before the High Court on a petition seeking protection made by a young couple comprising an adult male and a minor female, approximately 16 years and 11 months old, who had run away because of fear of threats to their safety and forcible marriage by the family of the minor girl. The couple was living together since they were scared of immediate threats to their lives and sought protection from the court. The couple was going to get married once the girl reached the age of majority.The counsel for the couple contended that despite marriageable age, each individual has the right to be safe from any harm.
High Court’s Decision: Legal Sacredness v Child’s Safety
The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected the petition seeking protection to the couple. It explained that whereas it is always meant to be the shield for individual freedom, it cannot pass any orders which implicitly support or approve of what is not encouraged by the law statute.
The judgment of the High Court is based upon three main pillars:
1. No Implicit Legitimacy of Unlawful Relationship
It was highlighted by the Court that any form of “mantle of protection,” given to such a couple wherein there exists one minor, would implicitly mean a form of endorsement of their illegal relationship. The court reiterated the fact that for a live-in relationship to have any legitimacy, it needs to follow a similar pattern to a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” In accordance with the Indian laws, it is essential that both parties to such a relationship be unmarried and eligible for marriage.
2.Overruling Power of Child Welfare Laws
The High Court laid emphasis on the fact that the legal right of choice of a child is confined within the protective laws. Child Welfare laws such as Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 protect children from any sort of abuse. The granting of protection services of the police to an adult living with a child would negate the effects of all such laws and welfare acts.3. The Court as Parens PatriaeIt was explained in light of the doctrine of Parens Patriae that the duty of the Court is to ensure that the welfare and custody of the minor are the prime concern above any claim of romance. It is a legal fact that the parents have custody rights over their minor. In case of abuse or threat to the minor’s life from their own homes, the law provides separate ways to address this issue.
3. Dual approach: Balancing safety and law enforcement
While the High Court clearly stated that it cannot protect the relationship, it was not left alone with a vulnerable minor who may face abuse. It created a dual approach for the police to intervene:
- Child Welfare Committee (CWC) intervention: If the case involves a victim minor, the court will instruct the local police to bring the minor before the Child Welfare Committee according to the Juvenile Justice Act. The committee will be responsible for ensuring that the minor is safe and sound mentally and arrange his/her accommodation until he/she reaches adulthood, such as Children’s Home or Nari Niketan.
- No protection against criminal prosecution: The High Court made it clear that no order of preventing physical violence will provide immunity against criminal prosecution. If the parents file an FIR for child abduction/kidnapping/POCSO act violation, the local police will investigate and prosecute the adult partner accordingly.
Conclusion: The Need for a Legal Line
This judgment by the High Court of Chandigarh has sent out a strong message to everyone couples as well as lawyers. Even though the judiciary upholds adult relations and even supports adults in the decision to lead their life separate from marriage, there is a very clear line drawn at the age of adulthood. Where minors are concerned, the individual freedom has to bow down before the law. The state will come to the rescue of the minor’s life, but in an institutional set-up and not as a part of a domestic setup. Advocate Mukul Goyal can help individuals understand such legal complexities and their implications. You can visit the best Supreme Court lawyer in Delhi.