A man went to the Himachal High Court because he was worried about a woman he knew. She had sent messages saying she might be in danger. The man believed her husband and mother-in-law were stopping her from leaving the house. But instead of checking if the woman was safe, the court focused on one thing — the man and woman were in a relationship even though she was married.

The judges gave the man a lecture about morality and refused to get involved. They said courts should not interfere in problems between a husband and wife. But this missed the real issue: what if the woman was actually being held against her will?

India’s Supreme Court had already said in 2018 that adultery, or relationships outside marriage, is not a crime. In another case in 2024, the Supreme Court also told High Courts to carefully check cases where families may be illegally keeping someone confined, especially when safety and freedom are involved.

A habeas corpus case is meant to protect people from being locked up or controlled unfairly. So, instead of judging the relationship, the High Court could simply have checked whether the woman was safe and free to speak for herself.

Judges are expected to keep personal opinions and moral views out of court decisions. But here, the judges seemed more upset about the woman’s relationship than concerned about her safety and rights. The court should focus first on protecting life and freedom, not on judging people’s private choices.

END OF ARTICLE