The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected a petition seeking protection for a live-in couple after it found the girl was just about 17 years and seven months old..Justice Sumeet Goel said the courts indirectly cannot approve of such a live-in relationship where a minor is involved. Instead, the single-judge stressed that the courts must remain mindful of the fact that welfare and well-being of the minor is of paramount consideration. “To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live-in arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established statutory framework designed to shield the young and impressionable from exploitation and moral peril,” the Court added..It further noted that the law has circumscribed the liberties of minors, recognising their tender age and the consequential susceptibility to undue influence and imprudent choices.“By legislative fiat, provisions exist to interdict any form of abuse or impropriety that might arise from the unfettered discretion of those yet to attain the full facilities of maturity. Any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor’s involvement in such a relationship would not only be antithetical to the legislative intent but would also undermine the very bulwark erected to preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence,” the Court opined..The couple before the Court had submitted they have known each other for long and are in a live-relationship at present. It was also submitted that the couple were previously engaged with the consent of their families but the girl’s family later broke the engagement since her father intended to get her married to a man elder to her and who offered to take her abroad after marriage. Thus, they sought a protection order from the Court. Considering the girl’s age, Justice Goel made it clear that the Court, while exercising its protective jurisdiction, must tread with measured caution to ensure that its decree does not even by implication countenance what the law expressly deprecates.“Indubitably, the petitioner No.2 is a minor and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be afforded relief(s) as sought for in the petition,” the Court said, while dismissing the plea..However, the Court also directed the Senior Superintended of Police of Taran Tarn to take requisite steps in accordance with the law. Advocate Prince Sharma represented the petitioners. [Read Order]