IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the right to protection under Article 21 does not extend to relationships deemed illegal or immoral, emphasizing constitutional morality over societal norms.

ORDER :

1. Gorkha Ram son of Likhmaram aged about 24 years has filed this habeas corpus petition seeking a direction upon the State authorities for production of ‘X’ in the Court ‘X’ is aged about 32 years.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner states that ‘X’ is a married woman and a divorce petition has been filed by her in the Family Court at Jodhpur (Metropolitan) on the ground of physical and mental cruelty. The petitioner has also described in the writ petition various acts of torture and harassment inflicted upon ‘X’ by her husband. The petitioner admits that ‘X’ is a major and further states that she had a live-in relationship with him. In support of this petition, the petitioner has produced a copy of live-in relationship agreement dated 2nd February 2024 which according to him has been executed by ‘X’ out of her free will.

3. The relevant paragraphs in the writ petition are reproduced herein-under:

“2. That it is pertinent to mention here that the corpus is major girl. The Corpus and petitioner are in love and she wants to get married with the present petitioner. Earlier also the Corpus had left her home twice to live with the present petitioner and for some time they also lived together. Since the corpus was already married to Respondent No. 7, therefore, in order to legal reside together they executed a document with respect to their intent to live together, in a live-in relationship. It is also pertinent to mention here that corpus has also filed a divorce petition against the Respondent No. 7. before Family Court. Jodhpur Metropolitan on the ground of physical and mental cruelty Since, before adjudication of the Divorce Petitioner and the Corpus could not have gotten married thus, they executed an agreement, to live together. A copy of the Live-In-Relationship agreement dated 02.02.2024, is attached herein with and marked as ANNEXURE-1, A copy of the Divorce Petition filed by the Corpus a/w its registration number is attached herein with and marked as ANNEXURE-2, collectively.

3. That when the husband of the corpus got to know about the same thus in order to get revenge from the Corpus and the present petitioner, he filed a Missing Person Report and look the Corpus away from the petitioner using the tools of law, thereby, illegally abusing the law by misusing it. The husband has committed physical cruelty upon the corpus and assaulted her again and detained her In his home Corpus somehow got her hands on a phone and communicated the same with the petitioner and asked him to protect her from her husband.

4. That the respondent No. 7 has detained the corpus illegally and against the will and wish of the corpus The petitioner tried his best to protect corpus from this marriage but he could not.

5. That the corpus is not allowed to go anywhere and locked in the house. Respondent no. 7 has also took away the phone from the corpus so that she can not ask anyone for help her Even though the corpus wants to make a life of her own, her husband is forcing her to remain locked in the house The parents of the corpus are also constantly threatening her liberty and violating her fundamental rights.

6. That the petitioner tried his best to reach higher police authorities to protect the interest of the corpus but due to political and financial powers of respondent no. 7 he failed to do the same and now he is left with no option but to seek interference from this Hon’ble Court.”

4. A status report dated 3rd December 2024 has been tendered in the Court. In this report; it is stated that ‘X’ expressed her willingness to stay with her husband Pukhraj and uncle-in-law Bhanwara Ram. We have however not gone into that aspect and the present habeas corpus petition is being decided on the basis of the statements made by the petitioner. We have adopted this course having in our mind the decision in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, 1974 (4) SCC 141 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while dealing with a petition for writ of habea