Rajasthan High Court: In a habeas corpus petition seeking a direction upon the State authorities for the production of ‘X’, a 32-year-old married woman, with whom the petitioner claimed to be in a live-in relationship, a Division Bench of Madan Gopal Vyas and Shree Chandrashekhar,* JJ., dismissed the petition and held that “in no case, a person who claims live-in relationship with a married woman who is his own sister and makes a vague statement that ‘X’ is under illegal confinement of her husband and uncle-in-law can maintain a habeas corpus petition.”
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking a direction upon the State authorities to produce ‘X’, a 32-year-old married woman, in Court. ‘X’ filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Jodhpur on grounds of physical and mental cruelty by her husband (respondent 7).
The petitioner claimed that he and ‘X’ were in a live-in relationship and provided a Live-In Relationship Agreement dated 02-02-2024, as evidence. The live-in relationship agreement revealed a glaring fact that the petitioner and ‘X’ appear to be real brother and sister.
The petitioner stated that ‘X’ left her marital home twice to live with him. The petitioner stated that upon learning about their relationship, the husband of ‘X’ allegedly misused legal provisions by filing a missing person report, forcibly taking ‘X’ away and detaining her at his home. The petitioner alleged that ‘X’ is being held against her will, subjected to physical cruelty, and denied contact with the outside world, including having her phone confiscated. The petitioner approached higher police authorities for intervention but claimed that due to the financial and political influence of respondent 7, his efforts failed, leading him to file this petition.
Moot Point
-
Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to file a habeas corpus petition for ‘X’?
-
Whether the alleged detention of ‘X’ by her husband is illegal and violates her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
-
Whether a live-in partner can invoke the writ of habeas corpus for the production of the other partner in a court of law?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner cited Leela Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4014, where the Supreme Court emphasised that the public morality should not override constitutional morality; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court recognised privacy and personal autonomy as fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India and Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 189, where it was held that familial structures cannot be used to suppress constitutional rights. The petitioner also referred to Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 409 and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416, and argued that habeas corpus should be issued as the State has a duty to protect individuals from illegal confinement, citing
However, the respondents argued that ‘X’ willingly chose to remain with her husband, as per the status report. It was contended that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable as ‘X’ was neither missing nor unlawfully detained. It was argued that the petitioner’s relationship with ‘X’ does not give him a legal right to seek her production.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the State authorities submitted a status report on 03-12-2024, stating that ‘X’ expressed her willingness to stay with her husband and uncle-in-law. The Court, however, focused on the legality of the detention rather than ‘X’s willingness, following the precedent set in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, 1974 SCC (4) 141, where the Supreme Court held that in habeas corpus petitions, the legality of detention can be examined without producing the detained person in court.
The Court stated that habeas corpus petitions are intended for illegal detention cases. However, the petitioner had no legal standing as he was not a legal guardian, spouse, or immediate dependent. The Court held that emotional concerns alone do not grant a person the right to file habeas corpus petitions.
“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 acknowledged the significance of constitutional morality over societal morality. While rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on constitutional morality, the Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not provide a right to engage in an adulterous relationship. The Court further stated that the live-in relationship between the petitioner and ‘X’ was void ab initio under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 as it contravened public morality.
“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.”
The Court distinguished the present case from Leela Bishnoi (Supra), where both partners sought police protection, whereas, in the present case, ‘X’ had not personally approached the Court. The Court also distinguished Navtej Singh Johar (Supra) as it pertains to consensual relationships between adults without conflicting marital status.
The Court reiterated that it is the duty of the State to protect fundamental rights but also noted that habeas corpus is issued only when illegal detention is proven. However, the Court asserted that Article 226 is meant for the public good and cannot be used to endorse immoral conduct. The Court held that the petitioner had no legal standing to file a habeas corpus petition since ‘X’ was legally married to another person.
“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.”
Court’s Decision
The Court held that since ‘X’ had expressed her willingness to stay with her husband, there was no unlawful detention. The Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and held that the petitioner had no locus standi as ‘X’ was not in illegal custody.
The Court imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner to be deposited with the Government Blind School, Jodhpur, within four weeks and stated that failure to deposit the fine will result in suo motu contempt process.
[Gorkha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 467/2024, Decided on 04-12-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Pradeep Khichi, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG and Mr. Ladhuram, Counsel for the Respondents
