The Punjab and Haryana High Court have recently dismissed a plea for protection brought by a couple who were in a live-in relationship but remained married to another, ruling that the couple’s claims of getting threats from anonymous persons were improbable
By: Himkiran Kaur Sethi, The Law School, University of Jammu
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a petition for protection filed by a couple who were in a live-in relationship but still married to another, finding the pair’s claims of receiving threats from unidentified individuals to be implausible. According to Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan, the petition was filed “simply to seek a seal of this Court on their so-called live-in relationship.”
“On the face of it, both the petitioners, without seeking a divorce from their respective spouses … are living a lustful and adulterous life with each other and have relied upon a totally vague document i.e. representation … wherein it is nowhere stated that from whom, they are apprehending threat to their life and liberty,” the Court observed further.
Despite being married to other people, the petitioners told the court that they had been in a love connection for many years. It was also said that they had been living together for the last month, much to the chagrin of their respective wives.
As a result, a petition was filed asking the Court to issue an order protecting the couple from the alleged threats they faced.
A submission made on the subject to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, was also noted, in which the petitioners said that they fear danger from the “aforementioned people.” However, the Court held that neither the representation nor the petition specified who the “aforementioned people” were.
“In the absence of any allegation by not naming anyone in the representation, it cannot be presumed that both the petitioners have any apprehension from their own spouses … On the face of it, the representation (Annexure P-4) appears to be a fake document as no receipt or diary number of the office of Superintendent of Police, Kaithal is given or attached,” the Court said.
The lady petitioner had also filed for divorce from her spouse, alleging abandonment and neglect, according to the Court.
In addition, the Judge determined that the allegations stated in the divorce petition were diametrically opposed to the petition filed requesting protection.
In light of this, the judge decided that there is no cause to think that the petitioner’s life or liberty is in jeopardy. As a result, the petition was dismissed by the court.