In an out of the ordinary order placing the welfare of children at the forefront, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed a live-in couple, whose plea for protection of life and liberty was dismissed, to open recurring deposit (RD) accounts in the names of each of their four children from respective marriages. They were also directed to monthly deposit at least Rs 5,000 in each account for one year.The court, while observing that the petition deserved dismissal with exemplary costs, refrained from imposing the same and, instead, issued the financial direction “in the interest of justice and keeping in view the welfare of the minor children”.Justice Alok Jain passed the order while taking up a writ petition filed by two persons seeking directions to for protection of their life and liberty on the ground that they were in a live-in relationship and apprehended danger. The petitioners claimed that representation dated June 26 submitted by them to the authorities concerned it had not been acted upon.Examining the merits of the petition, the court recorded that both petitioners were already married to other individuals. The man had three children from his wife, while the woman had one child from her husband.Justice Jain noted that “the future of four children is also at stake”. The petitioners are under a legal and moral obligation to ensure the welfare and future of these children. However, such responsibility does not appear to be reflected in their conduct in the present case.The court also found several material deficiencies in the pleadings. Referring to the averment that the man’s wife had died, Justice Jain observed that “despite repeated and specific queries by this court as to when petitioner had married earlier and when his wife had expired, counsel for the petitioners had no answer to the same”. It further noted that “there is not even a single averment that the other petitioner has initiated any proceedings for separation or divorce or has filed any complaint against her husband”.The court also found that the petitioners had failed to disclose basic facts regarding their relationship. Justice Jain recorded: “On a specific query put by this court as to since when the petitioners had been living in a live-in relationship and what is their source of income, counsel for the petitioners could not respond to the same and no averment in this regard has been made in the petition.”  Holding that no case for protection had been made out, the bench observed: “The petition does not disclose any cogent threat perception. Rather, the present petition apparently appears to be a crude attempt to abuse the process of law so as to cover up their own promiscuous relationship. Such actions on the part of the petitioners are extremely detrimental to the future of the children they already have, apart from ruining the matrimonial lives of two other persons.”Summing up, Justice Jain held that “the petition does not disclose the correct factual position and apparently seems to be concealing more than revealing what is required to be disclosed, coupled with the fact that there is no apparent threat perception and that the process of law cannot be abused to cover up a promiscuous relationship”. It therefore concluded that it “does not find any merit in the present petition”.At the same time, the court clarified that dismissal of the petition would not dilute the State’s obligation to safeguard life and liberty wherever warranted, observing, “needless to say that the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners”.