The Punjab and Haryana High Court has released two different decisions regarding Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, focusing on the right to choose a partner and live-in relationships.

旁遮普與哈-里亞納邦高等法院針對印度憲法第 21 條發佈了兩項不同的決定，重點在於選擇伴侶的權利與同居關係。

In the first case, the court rejected a request for protection from a couple living together. The judge explained that the man was not old enough to marry legally, which meant the relationship did not meet the legal requirements for cohabitation. Furthermore, the court stated that Western ideas about live-in relationships are different from traditional Indian values. The court also argued that Article 21 protects the dignity of parents; therefore, leaving the family home was seen as a violation of the parents' right to maintain their honor and reputation.

在第一個案例中，法院拒絕了一對同居情侶的保護請求。法官解釋說，該男子尚未達到法定結婚年齡，這意味著該關係不符合同居的法律要求。此外，法院指出西方關於同居關係的觀念與印度傳統價值觀不同。法院還主張第 21 條保護父母的尊嚴；因此，離開家庭住所被視為侵犯了父母維持名譽與聲望的權利。

In contrast, in a second case, the court supported the right of an individual to choose their own spouse. An MBA graduate claimed that her relatives had used force and physical violence to pressure her into a marriage she did not want. The court ruled that deciding if, when, and whom to marry is a fundamental part of personal liberty. Although the court did not decide if the specific claims of violence were true, it ordered the police to assess the danger and provide the necessary protection to keep the woman safe.

相反地，在第二個案例中，法院支持個人選擇配偶的權利。一名 MBA 畢業生聲稱，她的親屬使用暴力和肢體攻擊，強迫她進入一段她不想要的婚姻。法院裁定，決定是否結婚、何時結婚以及與誰結婚，是個人自由的基本組成部分。儘管法院並未判定具體的暴力指控是否屬實，但仍命令警方評估危險程度，並提供必要的保護以確保該名女性的安全。

In summary, the court has confirmed that forced marriages are prohibited, but it has limited the legal protection for couples living together who do not meet the legal age requirements or cultural standards.

總結來說，法院已確認強迫婚姻是被禁止的，但對於不符合法定年齡要求或文化標準的同居情侶，法律保護則有所限制。