‘Man Living with Woman Without Divorcing Spouse Cannot be Termed Live-in Relationship: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a man engaged in a “lustful and adulterous life” with a woman, without legally ending his marriage, cannot be deemed to be in a “live-in-relationship” or a relationship akin to marriage.

A single-judge bench of Justice Kuldeep Tiwari dismissed the plea of a couple from Punjab seeking protection for their lives and liberty. The petitioners asserted they were in a “live-in relationship,” facing threats from the woman’s family who allegedly intended harm.

During the hearing, the court noted that the woman in the purported “live-in relationship” was unmarried, while the man, married and living separately from his wife due to strained relations, had two children with his wife who resided with their mother.

The court, in its order, remarked, “Without obtaining any valid decree of divorce from his earlier spouse and during the subsistence of his earlier marriage, the petitioner No.2 (man in live-in relationship) is living a lustful and adulterous life with the petitioner No.1 (woman in live-in relationship), which may constitute an offence punishable under Sections 494/495 of the IPC, as such a relationship does not fall within the phrase of ‘live-in relationship’ or ‘relationship’ in the nature of marriage.”

Addressing the alleged threats to life, the court found them to be “bald and vague.” It stated, “Neither any supportive material has been placed on record by the petitioners to corroborate their allegations, nor even any single instance pertaining to the manner and mode of alleged threats being extended to the petitioners has been anywhere disclosed.”

The court further emphasized, “On the face of the above, it appears that in order to avoid any criminal prosecution in case of adultery, the present petition has been instituted. To the judicial mind of this Court, under the guise of invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the hidden intent of the petitioners is just to obliquely obtain the seal of this Court on their conduct.”

Consequently, the court found no solid grounds to grant the requested relief and dismissed the petition.