Anjali and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Anjali and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana to look into the petitioners' representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) and, if any threat perception is found, to take appropriate action in accordance with law; without commenting on the nature of the relationship or merits, and without precluding proceedings against the petitioners in other criminal matters involving cognizable offences.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, two adults in a live-in relationship facing threats from the family members of petitioner No.1, are entitled to a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents.

Court's answer

In light of the relied-upon precedents, the Court held that even in the present case the protection of the petitioners' life and liberty is sacrosanct and stands at the highest pedestal, without commenting on the nature of their relationship or expressing any opinion on the merits.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to look into the representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) and, if any threat perception is found, to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The protection order shall not preclude the authorities from proceeding against the petitioners in any other criminal proceedings instituted or pending against them, if evidence surfaces regarding their involvement in a cognizable offence.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (CRWP-4331-2026 (O&M), decided 18.04.2026, Aman Chaudhary, J.) — Protection of life and liberty — Live-in relationship. Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by two adults (stated dates of birth 02.05.2006 and 15.03.2007) in a live-in relationship facing threats from the family members of petitioner No.1. Relying on Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana (CRWP-4521-2021, decided 18.05.2021) and Rajwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (LPA 16782014, decided 09.10.2014), where it was observed, considering Article 21, that marriage is not a must for providing protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, the Court held that protection of the petitioners' life and liberty is sacrosanct and stands at the highest pedestal. Without commenting on the nature of the relationship or the merits, the petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to look into the representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) and, if any threat perception is found, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the order does not preclude the authorities from proceeding against the petitioners in any other criminal proceedings if evidence of involvement in a cognizable offence surfaces.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

108 CRWP-4331-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.04.2026 ANJALI AND ANR ... Petitioners

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present : Mr. Jitesh Rana, Advocate for

Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents as they are in a ‘live-in’ against the wishes of their family members.

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the averments made in the petition, to state that both the petitioners are major and the date of birth of petitioner No.1 and No.2 are 02.05.2006 and 15.03.2007 respectively. The copies of their Aadhar cards are appended as Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. The petitioners are stated to be in a 'live-in relationship', on account of which family members of petitioner No.1 are giving threats to them.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and has no objection in deciding the representation filed on behalf of the petitioners.

In CRWP-4521-2021 titled as Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 18.05.2021 and in LPA 16782014 titled as Rajwinder Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 09.10.2014, wherein considering the fundamental rights ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it was observed that marriage is not a must for providing protection to a couple in a “Live-in Relationship” and that while they might be required to satisfy an appropriate

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.04.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-4331-2026

-2-

forum regarding the validity of their marriage but even in the absence of the same, the State is obligated to protect their life and liberty.

6. Resultantly, in light of the above, this Court is of the view that even in the case at hand, the protection qua the life and liberty of the petitioners being sacrosanct stands at the highest pedestal and as such, without commenting upon the aspect of the nature of their relationship or expressing any opinion on merits of the case, t he present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to look into the representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) and if any threat perception is found, to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

7. It is however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities to proceed against the petitioners, in case, they are found involved in any other criminal proceedings, instituted/pending against them if there is some evidence that surfaces regarding their involvement in a cognizable offence, for which they may be required by the investigating agency.

	(AMAN	CHAUDHARY)
18.04.2026		JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

ASHOK KUMAR 2026.04.18 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document