Introduction:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court presided over by Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan denied anticipatory bail to a police officer who has been accused of rape by his live-in partner. This decision was made specifically keeping in mind the legal and social acceptance of live-in relationships in India.
Background:
The case involves two married couple involved in an extra-marital affair and participating in a live-in relationship. The woman has now accused her live-in partner who is also a police officer of sexually assaulting her. The officer had initially sought pre-arrest bail from the trial court, but his plea was rejected on January 11. He then approached the High Court, but his first appeal was dismissed on merits in February this year.
Court's Observations:
Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, stated:
"The Court cannot stamp a live-in relationship inter se two married persons by granting them the concession of pre-arrest bail by way of accepting the present appeal. Polygamy is not permitted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and permitting such a relationship by allowing the appeal and granting the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant would give a wrong signal to the society, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant cannot re-agitate the matter by filing the second appeal on the strength of the said compromise deed."
However, the Court found the compromise deed unacceptable, reiterating:
"Secondly, in case the said compromise is accepted, this would be against the public policy, since both, the appellant and respondent No. 2- complainant are married to their respective spouses."
Legal Precedent:
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Indra Sarma v. KV Sarma concerning the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In that case, the Supreme Court had observed:
"If the relationship between the appellant (unmarried woman) and respondent (married man) is considered as a relationship in the nature of marriage, with the sanction of the Court, grave injustice would happen to the legally wedded wife and the children who oppose the relationship."
Conclusion:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to reject the anticipatory bail refuses to endorse a relationship between two married individuals through the acceptance of a compromise deed, the Court has sent a clear message against polygamy and the potential societal repercussions of such arrangements.The court has emphasised on the judiciary's commitment to upholding public policy and the sanctity of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
TAGS: Punjab and Haryana High Court Anticipatory Bail Live-In Relationship Rape Accusation Polygamy Public Policy Hindu Marriage Act Legal Precedent.
