Judicial Sanctity Cannot Be Given To Adulterous Relationships; No Habeas Corpus For Married Woman Living With Husband: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"Judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship which is apparently existing between the petitioner and the detenue," Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when sought by a person involved in an adulterous relationship with a married woman who is residing with her husband.

A bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed that "judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship" while dismissing the plea of a man claiming to be the woman's live-in partner.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the custody of a woman who is legally married and has a child from her marriage. Claiming to be her "close friend," the petitioner alleged the woman was being threatened by her husband and mother-in-law. To support his claim of a live-in relationship, the petitioner produced an "agreement" dated December 17, 2025, executed while the woman’s marriage was still subsisting.

The primary question before the Court was whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable at the instance of a person claiming a live-in relationship with a woman who is admittedly married and residing with her husband. The Court also examined whether judicial recognition could be extended to an adulterous relationship under the guise of protecting personal liberty.

Court Refuses To Intervene In Matrimonial Disputes Under Habeas Jurisdiction

The Court noted that the woman was admittedly married to Respondent No. 5 and lived with him and their child. The bench emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction of habeas corpus cannot be invoked to interfere in the private matrimonial lives of couples. The Court found that there was no case of "illegal detention" when a wife is residing in her matrimonial home.

"It is not for this Court, as such, to intervene in matrimonial issues inter se the detenue and her husband."

No Legal Recognition For Relationships Infringing On Marriage Sanctity

Upon a specific query from the bench, the petitioner admitted to being in a physical and live-in relationship with the married woman. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the petitioner's attempt to seek legal validation for such an arrangement. It held that the law does not afford protection or "sanctity" to relationships that are inherently adulterous and detrimental to the institution of marriage.

Court Explains Why Adulterous Ties Lack Judicial Protection

The bench clarified that the petitioner’s reliance on a "live-in agreement" was legally untenable given the woman’s existing marital status. By dismissing the petition, the Court sent a clear message that the writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect individuals from unlawful restraint, not to facilitate relationships that the law does not recognize as valid or protected.

"Judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship which is apparently existing between the petitioner and the detenue."

Distinguishing Supreme Court Guidelines In Devu G. Nair Case

The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Devu G. Nair vs. State of Kerala (2024), which laid down guidelines to maintain the dignity of intimate partners in habeas corpus proceedings. However, the High Court distinguished the precedent, noting that the Apex Court's guidelines were framed in the context of persons being detained by parents or family members against their will.

Precedent On LGBTQ+ And Intimate Partners Not Applicable To Adultery

The High Court observed that in the Devu G. Nair case, the detenue was not a married person living with a spouse. The bench held that those guidelines, intended for members of the LGBTQ+ community and other intimate partners facing family opposition, cannot be extrapolated to cover cases of adultery where a third party seeks to pull a married woman away from her matrimonial home.

"The said judgment is of no avail to the petitioner... it was not a case where the detenue was married and living with her husband."

The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, concluding that it lacked maintainability. The ruling reinforces the principle that while courts protect individual liberty, they will not exercise constitutional powers to endorse or provide "judicial sanctity" to adulterous relationships that interfere with valid legal marriages.

Date of Decision: 14 May 2026