Man in Live-In Relationship with His Married Sister Cannot File Habeas Corpus Petition: Rajasthan High Court

 

Man in Live-In Relationship with His Married Sister Cannot File Habeas Corpus Petition: Rajasthan High Court

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

 

Introduction

The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed to be in a live-in relationship with a married woman. The Court ruled that there exists no fundamental right allowing a person to engage in a live-in relationship with a woman legally wedded to another man, especially when the woman in question appears to be his own sister. The Division Bench of Justices Madan Gopal Vyas and Shree Chandrashekhar observed that the petitioner had no legal standing to invoke the writ of habeas corpus under such circumstances.

Factual Background

In this case, the petitioner sought a directive from the State authorities to produce ‘X,’ a 32-year-old married woman who had filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The petitioner claimed that ‘X’ had left her husband and was in a live-in relationship with him. As proof, he submitted a Live-In Relationship Agreement dated February 2, 2024. However, the document startlingly revealed that the petitioner and ‘X’ appeared to be biological siblings. The petitioner further alleged that ‘X’ was forcibly taken away by her husband and uncle-in-law, subjected to cruelty, and unlawfully confined. Despite approaching the police for intervention, he claimed that political influence obstructed his efforts, compelling him to file the present petition.

Legal Issues for Consideration

The Court examined three primary legal issues: whether the petitioner had locus standi to file a habeas corpus petition for ‘X’; whether ‘X’ was unlawfully detained by her husband, violating her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and whether a live-in partner could invoke habeas corpus for the production of their partner in court.

Contentions Raised by the Parties

The petitioner relied on landmark judgments, including Leela Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan (2021), K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), to argue that constitutional morality should prevail over societal morality and that personal autonomy is protected under Article 21. Additionally, citing Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), he contended that the State has an obligation to prevent illegal confinement.

Conversely, the respondents asserted that ‘X’ was neither missing nor unlawfully detained and had willingly chosen to stay with her husband. They argued that the petitioner, having no legal relationship with ‘X,’ lacked the right to invoke habeas corpus.

Court’s Observations and Rationale

The Court placed reliance on the State authorities’ status report, which confirmed that ‘X’ had expressed her willingness to stay with her husband. However, in line with Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate (1974), the Court clarified that the focus in habeas corpus matters should be on the legality of detention rather than the personal willingness of the detainee. The Court noted that habeas corpus is reserved for cases of illegal confinement and that the petitioner, lacking any legal standing, could not maintain the petition.

The Bench further rejected the petitioner’s argument based on constitutional morality, holding that Article 21 does not provide a fundamental right to engage in an adulterous or incestuous relationship. The Court underscored that the live-in relationship between the petitioner and ‘X’ was void ab initio under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as it contravened public morality. Furthermore, it distinguished the case from Leela Bishnoi, as ‘X’ had not personally sought protection, and Navtej Singh Johar, which dealt with consensual adult relationships without a conflicting marital status.

Final Judgment

In its ruling, the Court held that the petitioner had no legal standing to invoke habeas corpus since ‘X’ was lawfully residing with her husband. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and a fine of ₹10,000 was imposed on the petitioner, payable to the Government Blind School, Jodhpur, within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in suo motu contempt proceedings.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy intended to address illegal detention, not to facilitate claims that violate public morality or legal principles. The Rajasthan High Court’s decision underscores that constitutional rights cannot be invoked to justify relationships that contravene established legal and ethical norms.