Describing live-in relationships as a “modern lifestyle” adopted by a section of society under the influence of Western culture, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused protection to a couple claiming to be in such a relationship. The ruling came as the Bench asserted that children leaving their parental homes brought a “bad name” to their families.Dismissing their petition, Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that marriage was a holy relationship carrying legal consequences and enjoying great social esteem in India. The high court said the country’s deep cultural roots placed significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. But over time, a section of society appeared to have embraced the modern lifestyle of live-in relationships, it said.The couple had approached the high court claiming that they were majors, loved each other and intended to solemnise marriage in future. They asserted that they were currently living together in a live-in relationship, and alleged interference and harassment by relatives. The Bench was told that the relatives were allegedly pressurising the girl to leave the boy’s company.Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, Justice Moudgil observed that every individual had the right to live with peace, dignity and honour and also the right to preserve reputation. The Bench said the right to life and personal liberty included the right to live with dignity.At the same time, the high court observed that children running away from their parental homes not only brought a bad name to the family, but also violated the right of parents to live with dignity and honour.The high court referred to a Supreme Court judgment while asserting that prerequisites for a live-in relationship included the “parties holding themselves out to society as akin to spouses and being of legal age to marry, besides being unmarried”.Justice Moudgil further noted that various Benches had declined protection to couples in live-in relationships on the grounds that granting such protection could disturb the social fabric of society.Examining the case, the high court recorded the petitioners’ assertion that they were living together in a live-in relationship and intended to marry. It also noted the averment in the petition that one of the partners was yet to attain the marriageable age and would marry thereafter.The Bench held that certain conditions were required to be fulfilled before legitimate sanctity could be attached to such a relationship. Merely because two persons had been living together for a few days, their claim of a live-in relationship based on a bald averment could not be accepted as sufficient to conclude that they were truly in such a relationship, the court observed.Justice Moudgil added that directing the police to grant protection in such circumstances could indirectly amount to giving assent to an illicit relationship. The Bench further observed that orders could not be passed under Article 21 in such a manner, and that the freedom guaranteed under the Constitution had to operate within the ambit of law.