The Himachal Pradesh High Court has firmly rejected a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking custody of a married woman with whom he was having an affair, declaring that courts cannot grant “judicial sanctity” to an adulterous relationship.
The division bench of Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi delivered the ruling, emphasizing that the court will not use its extraordinary powers to intervene in ongoing matrimonial matters.
“Judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship which is apparently existing between the petitioner and the woman,” the bench remarked.
Inside the ‘Close Friend’ Custody Plea
The petitioner approached the High Court claiming to be a “close friend” of the woman, who is married and has a child with her husband. In his plea, the man urged the court to “set her free,” claiming he had received several messages from her expressing fear of safety threats from her husband and mother-in-law.
However, under questioning from the bench regarding the nature of their relationship, the petitioner admitted to having a physical, live-in relationship with the woman. To support his claim, he presented a mutual live-in agreement dated December 17, 2025.
The High Court dismissed the petition as “not maintainable,” pointing out the fundamental contradiction in the petitioner’s argument: the woman is currently living with her husband and child.
Why the Supreme Court Precedent Did Not Apply
In seeking the woman’s custody, the petitioner’s counsel heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Devu G Nair v State of Kerala and others.
However, the bench rejected this comparison. The High Court pointed out that the Supreme Court case did not involve a married woman living with her spouse. Instead, that case dealt with an unmarried woman residing with her parents, and the resulting guidelines were designed specifically to protect the dignity of intimate partners and members of the LGBTQ community from illegal detention.
Consequently, the bench ruled that the Supreme Court precedent was of “no avail” to the petitioner’s case.
A Broader Look at Recent Judicial Trends on Adultery
The Himachal Pradesh decision arrives amid several landmark rulings by various Indian High Courts addressing the legal boundaries of extramarital relationships and marital obligations.
Karnataka HC: Affair Justifies a Spouse Leaving the Marital Home
On April 28, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha, ruled that a wife leaving her husband due to his extramarital affair constitutes a “justified withdrawal” from cohabitation rather than “desertion.”
“A spouse cannot be compelled, either in law or in equity, to cohabit with a partner who is simultaneously maintaining a relationship with another person,” the Karnataka bench noted, adding that the law does not force anyone to remain in a relationship that is “unreasonable, unsafe, or undignified.”
Uttarakhand HC: Child’s Privacy Outweighs Adultery Claims
In another recent case, the Uttarakhand High Court rejected a husband’s petition demanding a DNA test on his minor child to prove his wife’s alleged adultery.
The bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit upheld a family court’s rejection of the petition, ruling that subjecting a minor to a paternity test to settle a marital dispute is an “unwarranted intrusion” into the child’s privacy and dignity.
