Man Has No Fundamental Right To Live-In Relationship With A Married Woman, Particularly When She Appears To Be His Own Sister: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court refused to issued a writ of habeas corpus on a man's plea alleging that his live-in partner, who appeared to be his real sister and was married to another man, had been illegally detained. 

In doing so the court ruled that there was no fundamental right of a person to be in a live-in relationship with a woman legally married to another man, especially when she appeared to be his own sister.

The court further emphasized that the Constitution of India does not "sanctify an immoral act" adding that a writ court cannot exercise its extraordinary discretionary powers in a matter which would only sanctify immorality in the society. The court further imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner.

A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas opined that even though the traditional doctrine of locus standi had relaxed where a habeas corpus was prayed for, a person who claimed to be in a live-in relationship with his own married sister could never maintain a habeas corpus petition claiming that the sister was under illegal confinement of her husband.

"The expression locus-standi is a Latin term that means “place of standing” and refers to the legal right of a person to bring a law suit or to participate in a legal proceeding. It ensures that only those with a genuine connection to the legal issues or legal rights are allowed to participate in the legal process. The writ of habeas corpus has always been looked upon as an effective means to ensure release of the detained person and any emotional or intellectual concern shall not of itself confer a standing on a person to maintain a habeas corpus petition...Plainly speaking, there is no fundamental right of a person to have a live-in relationship with a woman legally married to another man and, more particularly, when the woman appears to be his own sister. In our opinion, there is no fundamental right not even the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India that would provide a standing for the petitioner to maintain this habeas corpus petition. The Constitution of India or any other law in India does not sanctify an immoral act," it said. 

Relationship has no legal sanctity, Navtej Johar's observations won't apply

It observed that the alleged live-in relationship between the petitioner and the married woman has no legal sanctity and must be held "void ab initio" as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act

"We do not nurture a doubt even for a second that a petition seeking protection to life at the instance of any citizen of this country or even a foreign national notwithstanding his character, antecedents, etc. shall be maintainable by him or at his instance but a habeas corpus petition by a person like the petitioner seeking production of 'X' in the Court is not maintainable," the court said. 

It further observed that the debate on constitutional morality vis a vis societal morality was addressed by the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) in a "different context" and the observations made therein do not sanctify the relationship of the petitioner with the woman in the present case. 

“In our opinion, the writ Court cannot exercise its extraordinary discretionary powers in a matter which would only sanctify immorality in the society. May be the offence of adultery is not attracted against a woman, the very purpose of conferring high prerogative writs to the High Courts by the framers of the Constitution would be lost if this Court entertains this habeas corpus petition on the plea that the petitioner by living an adulterous relationship with a married woman did not commit a crime.”

Background

The habeas corpus petition was filed for a married woman on grounds of physical and mental cruelty by her in-laws, by a person (“Petitioner”) who claimed to be in a live-in relationship with her and was found out to be her own real brother.

It was submitted that the petition could be very well maintained by the petitioner on the basis of his relationship with the woman. Reference was also made to another Rajasthan High Court case of Leela & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. (“Leela Case”) to argue that societal morality did not create any legal hurdle in entertaining a habeas corpus petition.

Further, the Supreme Court decision of Devu G Nair v State of Kerala & Ors. (“Devu G Nair Case”) was also cited to submit that while evaluating the locus standi, there was no need to enquire into a precise nature of relationship and that some intimate partnership might face social stigma.

The Court rejected reliance on the Leela Case opining that a decision had to be understood in its context of facts and in the Leela case, two adult people engaged in a live-in relationship had approached the Court for police protection. Further, reference to the Devu G Nair case was also not accepted on the ground that the present case was not merely about a simple live-in relationship between two adults but such relationship between real brother and sister.

In this background, the Court held that there was no fundamental right, not even the right guaranteed under Article 21 that could provide standing to the petitioner to maintain this habeas corpus petition.

"This is too well settled a proposition in law that in appropriate cases the writ Court may refuse to entertain a writ petition even where some contentious issues are raised or an arguable point has been made out. Having regard to the facts so stated in this writ petition, the present D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.467/2024 is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Government Blind School, Jodhpur within a period of four weeks, failing which the Office shall register a suo moto contempt case against the petitioner," the court added. 

Case Title: GR v State of the Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 85