The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a protection plea filed by a live-in couple, observing that a section of society has started to “adopt eastern culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture.”The court noted that the boy has not yet attained the legal marriageable age and that the petition itself states the couple intends to marry only after he turns 21.The court asserted that their parents also have the right to live with dignity, and the petitioners, by running away from their parental home, are not only bringing “bad name” to the family but also violating the rights of their parents.The petitioners from Patiala claimed that both are adults, intend to solemnise their marriage and are currently living together in a ‘live-in-relationship’. They alleged that the girl’s family were interfering in their lives, harassing them and pressuring the girl to leave the company of the man, failing which he would be implicated in false cases.“The petitioners are unmarried and want to live together till they perform marriage, and as such, have sent a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, on June 1,” the petition claimed, seeking the court’s intervention.The court noted that the boy has not yet attained the legal marriageable age and that the petition itself states the couple intends to marry only after he turns 21.“...to attach legitimate sanctity to such a relation, certain conditions are required to be fulfilled by such partners. Merely because the two persons are living together for few days, their claim of live-in relationship based upon bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in live-in relationship and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship, and, therefore, the orders cannot be passed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of life to all citizens, but such freedom has to be within the ambit of law,” the court said.The court asserted that India is a country with a diverse set of principles, traditions, rituals, and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. “Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, society started to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship,” it said.“Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, each and every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour. Moreover, every person has a right to have his reputation preserved. It is a jus in rem, a right good against all in the world. Article 21 of the Constitution of India places Fundamental Rights on a much higher pedestal. It must be preserved since it is sacred under the Constitutional Scheme. The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners by running away from their parental home is not only bringing bad name to the family but also is violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour,” it recorded while dismissing the plea and referring to several other judicial pronouncements in which it was held that the pre-requisites for a live-in-relationship is that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.