CRWP/10400/2026 of RAJESH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS on 27 August 2026

CRWP-10400-2026 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-10400-2026

Date of Decision: 27.08.2026

Rajesh and another

………Petitioners

Versus State of Haryana and others

..….Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Sidharth Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. AG, Haryana.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral). This is a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and not to harass the petitioners and to further direct the official respondents to ensure the security of life and liberty of the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have known each other for quite some time and having developed liking for each other, they are living in a live- in-relationship. It is further submitted that they intend to solemnize marriage, when petitioner No.2 attains the age of majority. 2.1

It is further submitted that association of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2, who is a minor, her date of birth

CRWP-10400-2026 [2]

being 21.06.2009, has drawn opposition from respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and as such, the petitioners need protection as regards their life and liberty at the hands of the said respondents, by way of issuance of appropriate directions to the official respondents.

3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Petitioner No.1 is 21 years old, his date of birth being 14.02.2005. However, the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 21.06.2009 and thus, as of now, her age is 17 years. Upon a query put to learned counsel as to how protection can be granted to the petitioners, especially when petitioner No.2 is a minor, learned counsel submits that the matter may be dealt with by the competent authorities under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 or alternatively, petitioner No.2 be sent to Nari Niketan, till she attains the age of majority.

4. A Division Bench of this Court in Yash Pal and Another vs. State of Haryana and others, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239, while dealing with the issue of providing protection to the minor partners, being in live-in-relationship, held as under:- "42. A minor in a live-in relationship with an adult or where the live-in relationship is partnered only by minors, thereby the concerned cannot seek the protection from Courts of law. The reason for making the said conclusion becomes firmly embedded in the factum, that a minor belonging to any religious denomination, thus is incompetent to contract. If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom. Contrarily the freedom to make choices by the minors are ably fettered, by the statutes respectively nomenclatured as The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and, as nomenclatured as Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

CRWP-10400-2026 [3]

43. Furthermore, in respect of religious communities other than the Hindus, the Indian Majority Act, thus prescribing the age of majority, therebys becomes the regimen wherebys, there is a bar against a minor entering into a contract. The effect thereof, is that, the said disability encumbered upon a minor belonging to a religious denomination other than the Hindus, thus therebys also concomitantly preempting the minor from making any choices, disability whereof also covers the makings of ill choices qua the entering into a live-in relationship either with a minor or with an adult.

44. If protection is provided to minor partners, who are in a live-in relationship where only one of them is a minor, or where both are minors, therebys the granting of the espoused protection, rather would run counter, vis-a-vis, well statutory crampings of discretions of a minor. Moreover therebys this Court would be avoiding to perform its duty as a parens patriae towards the minors wherebys rather this Court is required to be ensuring the welfare of the minor concerned. Therefore, the said solemn duty cast upon Courts of law, naturally requires that the minor concerned, rather than being permitted to be a partner in a live-in relationship either with a minor or with an adult, thus his/her custody is required to be ensured to be retrieved to his/her parents, and, natural guardian. However, in the above endeavour if the Court perceives that there would be an imminent threat to the life of the minor, therebys, the Courts are required to be proceeding to recourse the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, inasmuch, as directing the minor to till his or her attaining majority, thus staying comfortably at Children Home or at a Nari Niketan, as the case may be."

5. A Coordinate Bench in Sxxxxx and another Vs. State of Punjab and others (CRWP-9197-2026 decided on 03.08.2026), while relying upon the Division Bench judgment in Yash Pal’s case (supra), dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners (the girl being a minor) therein.

6. This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid view and is of the considered opinion that while dealing with matters of protection of life and liberty, involving minor partners, living in a live-in-relationship, Courts must be conscious of the fact that any such direction would amount to endorsing the said arrangement, running counter to the legislative intent and public policy.

CRWP-10400-2026 [4]

7. That being so, the instant petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) 27.08.2026

JUDGE ds

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No