No Police Protection to Live-in Couples When One Partner Is a Minor: Welfare Jurisdiction Prevails Over Relationship Autonomy

1. Introduction

This decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court (03-08-2026), delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel in SXXXXX AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (CRWP-9197-2026), addresses a recurring category of petitions: requests for police protection by couples facing familial opposition.

The petitioners claimed they were in a relationship, intended to marry when petitioner No.1 attained majority, and alleged threats and harassment from private respondents (family members). They sought directions to the police authorities (respondents No.2 and 3) to protect their life and liberty and to restrain private respondents (respondents No.4 to 7) from interfering.

The core legal issue was whether a writ court should grant “protection” relief when one partner is a minor and the couple is effectively asserting a live-in arrangement/choice against parental control.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court noted the admitted date of birth of petitioner No.1: 11.08.2009, making her about 16 years at institution.
  • Since petitioner No.1 was a minor, the Court held that the petitioners could not be granted the protection relief sought.
  • The petition was dismissed.
  • The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, District Ludhiana to take requisite steps in accordance with law, and ordered the Registry to forward the complete paper-book and order to the Commissioner.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court anchored its conclusion in the Division Bench ruling: YASH PAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239.

The quoted portions (paras 42–44) from Yash Pal laid down the operative framework:

  • No protection to minors in live-in relationships: A minor in a live-in relationship (whether with an adult or another minor) cannot seek protective orders that effectively sustain that arrangement.
  • Incapacity and curtailed autonomy: The reasoning ties a minor’s limited decisional autonomy to statutory schemes restricting a minor’s capacity to contract and make binding choices.
  • Parens patriae obligation: Courts must prioritize the minor’s welfare, which generally entails ensuring custody is restored to parents/natural guardians rather than judicially shielding a minor’s live-in arrangement.
  • Safety valve through child-protection law: If there is an imminent threat to the minor, the proper course is recourse to protective mechanisms (including placements like a Children Home/Nari Niketan) under the child welfare framework (as referenced in Yash Pal).

In the present case, Justice Goel treated Yash Pal as controlling authority and applied it directly: once petitioner No.1’s minority was established on admitted facts, the protection writ could not be granted.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The judgment’s reasoning proceeds in a structured sequence:

  1. Nature of relief sought: The petition sought police protection and a restraint against family interference—relief which, in substance, would enable the couple to continue living together on their own terms.
  2. Judicial caution where minors are involved: Relying on Yash Pal, the Court emphasized that granting such protection would amount to an implicit judicial approval of a minor’s participation in a live-in relationship—something the statutory framework does not countenance.
  3. Paramountcy of welfare: The Court reiterated that in petitions involving minors, the welfare and well-being of the minor is paramount; the court’s protective jurisdiction should not be used to “sanction by implication” what the law seeks to prevent.
  4. Application to admitted facts: Petitioner No.1 was indisputably a minor; therefore, the petitioners were ineligible for the relief as framed.
  5. Direction to police: Instead of granting couple-centric protection, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police to take steps “in accordance with law,” and ensured the police received the full record—signalling a shift from “protect the couple’s arrangement” to “ensure lawful, welfare-oriented action.”

3.3 Impact

This decision reinforces and operationalizes the Division Bench approach in Yash Pal for the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s protection-petition docket:

  • Clear gatekeeping rule: Where one partner is a minor, courts are unlikely to grant “police protection” orders that would facilitate continuation of a live-in arrangement.
  • Shift to welfare machinery: The practical pathway moves away from writ-based couple protection to child protection and guardianship-aligned responses (including lawful custody/welfare measures).
  • Reduced strategic litigation: Couples cannot use a protection writ as a device to obtain judicial cover for a relationship where the law treats one partner as lacking full legal capacity.
  • Operational consequence for police: The directive to the Commissioner of Police (with the paper-book) underscores that police action should be guided by lawful child-safety and welfare considerations, rather than merely providing escort/security to sustain the couple’s living arrangement.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Police protection” in relationship petitions: A court direction requiring police to prevent threats/harassment. In minor-involved cases, such orders can indirectly validate a minor’s live-in arrangement—hence the judicial reluctance.
  • Minor: A person below the age of majority. The court treated minority as a decisive fact that changes the nature of permissible relief.
  • Parens patriae: The court’s role as a protective guardian for those unable to protect their own interests (notably minors). This doctrine pushes the court to prioritize welfare over asserted autonomy.
  • “Implicit approbation”: Even if a court does not expressly approve a minor’s live-in relationship, granting protection that enables the arrangement can be seen as indirect approval—something the court seeks to avoid.
  • “In accordance with law” (police direction): A signal that police must act using appropriate legal frameworks (including child welfare and safety procedures), rather than treating it as a simple law-and-order protection detail.

5. Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the protection petition because petitioner No.1 was a minor, holding that courts should not extend protection orders that would effectively sustain a live-in relationship involving a minor. By applying YASH PAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239, the Court reaffirmed that minor welfare is paramount and that judicial protection jurisdiction cannot be used to indirectly legitimize arrangements the statutory scheme is designed to restrain. The accompanying direction to the Commissioner of Police indicates that the appropriate state response lies in lawful, welfare-oriented action, not relationship-facilitating protection orders.