In one striking judgement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a live-in couple would be entitled to protection even if one of the partners is already married. The judgement recognises the rights of people in live-in relationships and acts as a guideline for protection against life and personal liberty as per Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, especially when matters concerning personal relationship are complex.The matter had cropped up for the first time before the High Court on the petition of a couple living together, praying for police protection apprehending life threats from the family members of one of the partners. Societal pressure and threats to the couple arose owing to the fact that one of them was married and had children through the wedlock with another person. It was contended by the couple that though there was an existing marriage, they had a right to live together and have protection provided by the State in terms of the Constitution. The police were unwilling to grant them protection in view of the partner's existing marital relationship. They, therefore, approached the High Court for protection against any harm that could be caused to them for living together. Punjab and Haryana High Court, while passing the order, states that the relationship of petitioners may not be able to meet all conventional or legal definitions of marriage. However, the Court has made it amply clear that life and personal liberty, as entrenched under Article 21 of the Constitution, is a basic feature and, as such, cannot be jeopardized whatsoever, whatever the type of relationship. It held that even in cases when one of them is already married, it would not affect the grant of protection to the couple. The Court observed that the principal issue involved in such cases always relates to saving the lives and liberties of the people in peril. It is of little consequence whether the person is already married or not. Right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity in a relationship of one's choice, and this cannot be taken away based on societal judgments and moral policing. If a life of a person living in live-in relationship is under threat, then protection must be given, even if one of the partners is already married observed the bench. This order is important in widening the circle of individual freedoms in India by upholding the rights of live-in couples when the institution of marriage is not consummated according to convention. It underlines personal liberty as an inviolable tenet that cannot be taken away because one party has expressed social disapproval or legal relationships. It also underlines how the judiciary is increasingly opening to relationships outside the traditional institution of marriage and thus towards an expanding notion of personal rights. While the judgment does not condone adultery or bigamy, it ensures persons with complicated relationships are not denied basic rights