The girl was already married, according to a bench led by Justice Vipul Pancholi, and there had been no divorce. As a result, her joint custody with her husband was not “illegal.”
The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a petition by a man seeking custody of his girlfriend, whom he claimed was in the “illegal custody” of her husband [Bhagwan Rajabhai Chaudhari vs State of Gujarat].
A division bench of Justices Vipul Pancholi and Hemant Prachchhak dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Bhagwan Chaudhari, who claimed that his girlfriend was forced to marry another man against her wishes by her family.
However, after the marriage, she left her matrimonial home and began living in a live-in relationship with the petitioner. The couple even registered a “live-in relationship” agreement, on the basis of which the petitioner sought her custody, claiming that she is in the wrong custody of her so-called husband.
On the other hand, the state argued against the plea, claiming that the girl’s marriage was still active and that as a result, her custody arrangement with her husband could not be considered unlawful. After hearing both sides’ arguments, the bench took note of the fact that the girl was already married but had not yet ended her marriage to her previous spouse.
“It would emerge that she got married with her husband and it is alleged that the marriage took place against her wish and therefore, she left her house and she was voluntarily staying with the petitioner and live-in relationship agreement was executed between them,” the bench observed.
The bench made the observation that her marriage to the petitioner was not legally recognised because her previous marriage was still going strong at the time.
“At the same time, divorce has not taken place between woman and her husband. We are, therefore, of the view that her custody with the husband cannot be termed as illegal custody as alleged by the petitioner and the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition on the basis of the so-called live-in-relationship agreement,” the bench noted.
As a result, the petition was rejected by the judges, who also assessed costs of 5,000. “The petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000 with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of six weeks from today,” the bench ordered.
