The Punjab and Haryana High Court found that adults in partnerships, including married individuals, are entitled to protection from threats, whereas minors in similar situations do not have such protections. This decision contributes to the continuing conversation regarding partnerships in India and supports the freedom of consenting adults, regardless of marital status. However, it also highlights the constraints imposed on minors' decision-making in these situations. The ruling emphasizes the need to offer protection to adults in relationships from violence or intimidation, while recognizing the legal limitations for minors.

The court's decision was based on three petitions. The first involved a married man cohabiting with a woman. The second case concerned a woman living with another man while being married. The third case was an appeal against a 2021 ruling that denied a couple seeking protection, for their relationship and imposed costs on them.

Protection to Married Adults
Image Source: LiveLaw

A panel of judges, including Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma, emphasized the importance of people's right to control their bodies as well as protection from violence or intimidation. The court held that adults, regardless of marital status, are free to choose their relationships. When they are threatened by family members or self-proclaimed "moral guardians," the law should protect them.

The decision highlighted that the decriminalization of adultery does not impact the rights of couples living together, even if one partner is married, to seek legal remedies. The court noted that no matter the consequences of such arrangements the law must safeguard couples against violence. It further clarified that this aligns with the Supreme Court's recognition of autonomy and the freedom to make choices.

The court highlighted the significance, of parental responsibilities, particularly towards children. It stressed that individuals in relationships have to care for and protect their children. The court emphasized that men in such situations with children are obligated to ensure their well-being. In cases involving minors living together, the court ruled that they cannot seek legal protection due to restrictions, on their decision-making abilities.

It noted that Indian laws like the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the Indian Majority Act prevent minors from entering into contracts or making decisions regarding relationships. The court clarified that minors involved in relationships with adults or other minors are not entitled to court protection. It explained that minors cannot engage in such relationships and therefore do not qualify for safeguards.

This decision creates norms to protect people in partnerships while still acknowledging the limits imposed on children. It strikes a balance between recognizing liberty and acknowledging people's responsibility to their children and society. The framework is intended to capture the intricacies of these relationships.

You might also be interested in - Contempt of Court notice to be issued to Wikipedia by Delhi HC