Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh high court has ruled that a man who admits to being in a physical live-in relationship with a married woman cannot invoke habeas corpus to interfere in her matrimonial life. The court dismissed the petition seeking her custody, emphasizing that "judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship."
Background of the Case
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, heard the habeas corpus plea filed by the petitioner, who claimed to be a "close friend" of the woman. However, during the hearing, he admitted that he was in a live-in arrangement with her and they shared a physical relationship, despite the fact that she was legally married and had a child.
Allegations and Evidence Presented
The petitioner placed before the court an alleged agreement dated December 17, 2025, relating to their live-in relationship. He claimed that the woman was under threat from her husband and mother-in-law, based on certain mobile messages allegedly sent by her, and sought court directions for her "release."
Court's Observations
Refusing to entertain the plea, the division bench observed that the woman was admittedly residing with her husband. The court stated that the constitutional court could not be drawn into personal matrimonial disputes through habeas corpus proceedings. "It is not for this court to intervene in matrimonial issues inter se the detenue (woman) and her husband," the bench observed, while underlining that the relationship between the petitioner and the woman was apparently adulterous in nature.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in Devu G. Nair vs State of Kerala and Others, decided on March 11, 2024, concerning protection of intimate partners and members of LGBTQ communities in cases of illegal detention. However, the high court distinguished this judgment, noting that the Supreme Court case did not involve a married woman living with her husband. It clarified that the precedent dealt with issues of personal liberty where the woman was staying with her parents.
Dismissal of the Petition
Holding the petition to be not maintainable, the bench dismissed it at the threshold. The court emphasized that habeas corpus cannot be used to interfere in the matrimonial life of a married woman, especially when the petitioner admits to an adulterous relationship.
This ruling underscores the judicial stance that constitutional remedies like habeas corpus are not available to legitimize or interfere in adulterous relationships, and that matrimonial disputes should be resolved through appropriate family law forums.
