Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simranpreet Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(113) CRWP-4775-2026
DATE OF DECISION: 01.05.2026
Simarpreet Kaur and another ........Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .........Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present Mr.Mittardeep Singh, Advocate,
for Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.
***
SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus
directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the lives and liberty of the
petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on account of the fact that
the petitioners have started residing together in live-in-relationship.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner
No.1 is 17 ½ years of age and petitioner No.2 is 18 ½ years of age, and are
residing together in a live-in relationship, but they apprehend threat to their
life and liberty from the private respondents. While drawing the attention of
this Court to representation dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-3), learned
counsel has submitted that the matter was reported to respondent No.2-
Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, seeking police protection, however,
it went in vain. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners would
be satisfied if directions are issued to respondent No.2-Senior
Superintendent of Police, Moga, to look into the aforesaid representation
and take appropriate steps at the earliest.
MAMTA
2026.05.04 18:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-4775-2026 2
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G. Punjab, who is present in the
Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that both the
petitioners are living in live-in-relationship, however, petitioner No.1 has not
attained the age of majority. A child cannot have a live-in-relationship as it
would be not only an immoral act but also illegal. In case, the present
petition is allowed, it would amount to putting premium on an illegal
activity and thus, would not be in the interest of the society. Such kind of
relationship should not be protected with the umbrella of protection granted
by this Court. There is no dispute to the proposition that Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is sacrosanct and it is imperative upon the State to take
adequate measures to protect the life and liberty of each person. However,
there are statutory safeguards to protect the interest of a minor and once such
a fact comes to the notice of the Court, it becomes incumbent upon the Court
in its capacity as parens patriae to examine what is in the best interest of the
minor. Learned State counsel further placed on record a copy of FIR No.92
dated 22.04.2026 and apprised the Court that the FIR has been registered
against petitioner no.2 but till date girl, who is minor has not been traced.
5. Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate, appears on behalf of
respondents no.4 and 5 and submits that actual age of the girl/petitioner no.1
is 16 years six months and seventeen days while as per ;Aadhar Card, her
age is 17 ½ years.
6. Heard.
7. Petitioners are in live-in-relationship, however, one of the
partner i.e. petitioner No.1 is admittedly below the age of 18 years.
MAMTA
2026.05.04 18:53 Petitioners seek protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-4775-2026 3
Constitution of India, citing threats from the private respondents due to the
said live-in-relationship. Upon consideration, it is clear that the
girl/petitioner No.1 is a minor.
8. Albeit, a live-in-relationship in the nature of marriage has
attained sanction of law by the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court. However, there are certain pre-requisite conditions required for a
relation to be a lawful live-in-relationship. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the
cases titled as “D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, Criminal Appeal
Nos.2028-2029 of 2010” and “Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma, 2014 AIR
Supreme Court 309″ has laid down the conditions for a relationship to be a
valid relationship in the nature of marriage. On of the condition is that “they
must be of legal age to marry”.
9. Moreover, in Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017)
10 SCC 800, the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that Exception
2 to Section 375 IPC, which allowed marital intercourse with a wife above
the age of 15 years, is unconstitutional, and the age of consent in all cases is
18 years, even within marriage. Further, under the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006, the minimum legal age for a girl to marry is 18 years;
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, all
sexual activity with a person below 18 is statutory rape, regardless of
consent or marital status; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, every child in need of care and protection must be
safeguarded from abuse, exploitation and neglect. These special laws are
secular, welfare-centric, and override personal laws. They reflect the
compelling state interest in protecting children, and legislative intent to
MAMTA
2026.05.04 18:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-4775-2026 4
criminalize child marriage and sexual acts with minors, even under the
guise of marriage.
10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to
grant protection to a couple of live-in-relationship, where one of the partner
is minor as granting the same would defeat the very purpose of the aforesaid
statutes.
11. However, qua the minor i.e petitioner no.1, this Court is giving
the following directions in the light of the directions laid down in case of
‘P…….. Minor through Vikram vs. State of Haryana and others‘, CRWP-
2139-2022 (O & M):
(i) The petitioners are directed to appear before the SSP concerned
within a period of 07 days, from today, who shall thereafter produce
petitioner No.1 before the Child Welfare Committee constituted under the
provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
(ii) Respective committee shall conduct inquiry contemplated under
Section 36 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
and pass an appropriate order by associating all the stakeholders to
ensure that the objects of the Juvenile Justice Act are well served.
(iii) The Child Welfare Committee shall take appropriate decisions with
respect to the boarding and lodging of the minor and also to conduct
enquiry on all issues relating to and affecting safety and well-being of the
child/minor.
(iv) During the pendency of such adjudication and passing of orders as
contemplated under Section 37 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2015, the committee shall also take
appropriate interim/decisions as regards placement of a child/custody of
the child in need of care and protection.
(v) The concerned SSPs/SPs shall also take appropriate steps as
warranted by law against the threat perception to the petitioners and to
ensure that the petitioners are protected from any physical harm at the
instance of the respondents in respective cases. However, this will not
MAMTA create any impediment in taking action against petitioner No.2 as per law,
2026.05.04 18:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document if he is found to have committed any offence.
CRWP-4775-2026 5
(vi) The petitioners are directed to appear in the office of SSP/SP of the
respective Districts within a period of 07 days, failing which the
concerned SSP/SP shall depute a Child Welfare Police Officer to produce
the minor before the Child Welfare Committee within a period of 01 week
thereafter.
(vii) The Child Welfare Committee constituted under the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, shall send a
compliance report to this Court.
12. Disposed of accordingly.
13. Registry is directed to send the copy of order along with
petition and annexures to the concerned SSP/SP for necessary compliance.
01.05.2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MAMTA
2026.05.04 18:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
