The Andhra Pradesh High Court observes that one’s choice to live outside wedlock, does not mean that the married persons are free to live in live-in relationship during subsistence of marriage.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a Writ Petition of a man who had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court claiming that his live-in partner was untraceable. It was found that the man was already married and that his divorce proceedings were pending. Interestingly the said live-in partner's father had filed a missing persons complaint with the police and subsequently had taken the girl back to the parental home against which the man had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition.
 
The Court Observed that:
“We are not oblivious of the freedom of an individual attaining the age of majority, of his/her right to marry a person of choice or of even living in relationship with person of own choice without entering into wedlock, as such right of a person is considered a fundamental right to life and personal liberty flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
 
“Filing a Writ for Habeas Corpus seeking production of alleged detenue in Court and setting him or her free from the parental home in particular, and that too at the instance of a person, as the present petitioner, a married person seeking liberty of a girl, may be major, on the ground of the petitioner allegedly living in relationship with her, in our view, cannot be encouraged.”
 
“Filing of the writ petition appears to us to be a device adopted to have a seal and signature of this Court on the illegal act of the petitioner, transgressing the valid legal framework of his marriage. There is no factual foundation supported with material, to inspire confidence that it is a case of violation of one’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, or of any illegal custody of “A‟, by her father respondent No.5.”
 
“One’s choice to live outside wedlock, does not mean that the married persons are free to live in live-in relationship, with others outside wedlock during subsistence of marriage. That would be a transgressing, valid legal framework. The right to live out of wedlock is to be understood, living without solemnizing marriage, if they are major. They are not bound to marry each other. But, that does not mean living in live-in relationship, with others, outside wedlock, during continuance of marriage.

Devi Bulli Venkanna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh