Petitioner no.1 is barely 18 years old whereas petitioner no.2 is 21 years old. They claim to be residing along during a live-in relationship and claim protection of their life and liberty from the relatives of petitioner no.1. The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal, in its order, noted, "if such protection as claimed is granted, the whole social fabric of the society would get disturbed. Hence, no ground to grant the protection is created out". The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan had opined that "especially stating (in the deed) that it's not a 'Marital Relationship' is nothing however the misuse of the method of law because it can't be virtuously accepted in society." the Punjab and Haryana court last year remarked that a court hearing a Protection Petition filed by runaway couples needn't preach on morality or human behavior the bench of Justice Rajiv Narayan Raina had created it clear that in such cases, the court shouldn't present its personal views relating to morality, and should make sure that the couple's rights under Article twenty-one are protected. "It isn't for this Court in an exceeding protection petition to interact itself in social mores, norms, and human behavior or introduce personal ideas on morality." The Bench of Justice Alka sarin had additional reiterated that just as a result of the boy is not of marriageable age (though major) the right of petitioners to live together can't be denied further, noting that "Parents cannot compel a child to live a life on their terms which every adult individual contains a right to live his or her life as he or she deems fit", the court upheld a couple's right to be in an exceedingly live-in relationship.
Case title - Ujjawal and another v. State of Haryana et al. [CRWP-4268-2021(O&M)]