top of page

Live in Relationship case follow up: (June 4)

Backdrop - The case of Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab had recently come into the attention of the media. Gurwinder Singh (22) and Gulza Kumari (19), a runaway couple who were seeking protection from the girl’s parents who disapproved their relationship stated that they were in a live-in relationship and couldn’t get married because the documents concerning Gulza’s age were under the possession of her parents. The case soon turned out to be a case regarding the justification of live-in relationship in the present society rather than a petition to seek protection when a single-judged bench of Justice HS Madaan of Punjab and Haryana High Court had commented on this asserting the petitioners were seeking an approval on their live-in relationship. It was further stated that a live-in relationship is morally and socially not acceptable, and its presence may disturb the social fabric we thrive in. Recent news of June 4 - Recently a Division Bench comprising of Justices Navin Sinha and Justice Ajay Rastogi on June 4th came to the conclusion that a threat towards conducting a relationship within two adults is a threat to the liberty of the people. An order was passed such that police should look into the matter and resolve any threats or apprehensions, after the fact that the Superintendent of Police has previously refused to consider the representation given by the couple. Conclusive relation to actual status of live-in relationship - Such a move by the Supreme Court shows its stand for justice in ensuring the basic rights of dignified citizens of India. The right to a secure relationship can be equated with the basic needs of life. But a review of the case, as it was initially brought forward to the High Court, shows that it was about a couple seeking the liberty to marry, as Gurwinder Singh had stated earlier. They were in a live-in relationship but they had intentions to get legally married. Their status can be assumed to be that they were in a courtship which was not approved by their families. The intention of marriage brings in a twist in the case. One of the perspectives may even consider that this is not a case about seeking approval of a live-in relationship. The Supreme Court has identified the basic freedom needed and acted accordingly. No definite stand has been made on the approval of a live-in relationship in our society. Hence the issue of the legality of a live-in relationship, if disapproved by the family of either of the partners, or not, still remains a controversial topic despite the Apex Court having analyzed all important facts, passing an order to instruct the police to offer protection in this particular case. It can be assumed that the presented decisions apply only to the case of Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab, and the status of a live-in relationship still remains a matter of local jurisdiction, with perspectives differing on the basis of geographical and political differences and orthodoxy of the ancients, unguided by an universal law for the entire country.

Recent Posts

See All


Technology has deepened its role in the Indian Judicial System since Independence when there was no such expectation of this level of modernisation. History had been created on 26 August when Apex cou


This article will talk about a protest which occurred in Canada. Protest means expressing your disagreements, disapproval, or opposition. It could be either a peaceful or a violent one. This protest w


Post: Blog2 Post
Anchor 1
bottom of page