Advocate Dinesh Mahajan argued that the man had filed a divorce petition which is still pending before the High Court and in an order passed on September 30, 2008, it was observed by the court that there are no chances of reconciliation
Citing a 2018 Supreme Court judgment, wherein Section 497 (adultery) of the Indian Penal Code was struck down, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while hearing a protection plea of a live-in couple from Punjab, held that “no offence would seem to have been committed by the petitioners, they being adults in a live-in relationship with each other”.
The petitioner couple had moved the High Court to seek protection of life and liberty and sought directions to the Khanna SSP in Punjab and SHO of Samrala police station to not harass them at the instance of the man’s wife and her family members.
Representing the petitioners, advocate Dinesh Mahajan argued that the man had filed a divorce petition which is still pending before the High Court and in an order passed on September 30, 2008, it was observed by the cout that there are no chances of reconciliation.
He further submitted that the petitioners are in a live-in relationship with each other and are in apprehension of danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents, with the SHO harassing the petitioners at the instance of the respondents.
Meanwhile, the bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh, while citing a judgment of the Supreme, wherein the apex court had struck down Section 497 of the IPC as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, held, “Consequently, prima facie at least at this stage, no offence would seem to have been committed by the petitioners, they being adults in a live-in relationship with each other, whether or not any divorce petition is pending before this court, which of course it is in the present case.”
The bench further said, “It has been thus ordered by the HC Bench that the SSP, Khanna, shall ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is duly protected at the hands of respondents, as also at the hands of the SHO, with obviously a very adverse view to be taken by this court in case the petitioners are again harassed by the SHO on account of any live-in-relationship that they have with each other.”
It was also directed by the bench that the Khanna SSP shall file his own affidavit in reply to the petition. The matter was adjourned for September 24, 2021.
Source: Read Full Article