Himachal Pradesh High Court junks man’s custody plea for ‘close friend’: ‘No judicial sanctity to adulterous relationship’

Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi said that the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as admittedly the woman is living with her husband.

The bench added that it is not for this court, as such, to intervene in matrimonial issues between the woman and her husband.

‘Plea not maintainable, woman living with husband’

• We are of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as admittedly the woman is living with her husband.
• Though counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) titled as Devu G Nair v State of Kerala and others.
• A perusal of the said judgment of the apex court would go on to show that it was not a case where the woman was married and living with her husband.
• The issue was only regarding the relationship as such, and the woman was with her parents.
• In such circumstances, the guidelines, as such, had been laid down to maintain the dignity of intimate partners and members of the LGBTQ communities in cases of illegal detention. Therefore, the said judgment is of no avail to the petitioner.

Case of plea from ‘close friend’

The petitioner approached the court seeking the custody of a woman, who is admittedly married to the man, and they also have a child from the said marriage. The petitioner, who claimed to be a close friend of the woman on that basis, has filed the present habeas corpus petition praying that the woman be set free on account of the fact that he has received various messages from her and that she apprehends a threat from her husband and mother-in-law.

During the course of arguments, when a query was put to the petitioner as to whether he was in a physical relationship with the woman, it has come forth that there was also a live-in relationship, and an alleged agreement dated December, 17, 2025, has been placed on record.

Other court’s rulings on adulterous relationship

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if a wife separates from her husband due to his alleged extramarital relationship, such a move constitutes “justified withdrawal” from cohabitation rather than “desertion,” provided the plea is substantiated.

A division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha, in an order dated April 28, noted, “Allegations of extramarital relationship, if proved, have a direct and substantial bearing on the issue of 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 bench emphasised that such conduct negates any animus deserendi (the intention to end cohabitation permanently) on the part of the wife. “The law does not require a spouse to remain in a matrimonial relationship when the other spouse’s conduct renders cohabitation unreasonable, unsafe, or undignified,” the court added.

The Uttarakhand High Court recently dismissed a man’s plea for a DNA test of his minor child to substantiate allegations of his wife’s adultery, holding that such an action would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the child’s privacy and dignity.

A bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit rejected the appeal against an order passed by a family court whereby the application by the husband seeking permission for conducting a DNA examination was rejected.