JODHPUR, Oct. 19 -- The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a 24-year-old man seeking the production of a woman he claimed was his wife, holding that he had no locus standi to maintain it on the basis of a live-in relationship agreement when her existing marriage was still subsisting and she had a three-month-old child from the marriage. The court also found that the petition suppressed material facts and contained no prima facie evidence that the woman was being illegally detained by her parents or relatives. A division bench of justices Munnuri Laxman and Ashutosh Kumar on Friday imposed costs of Rs.25,000 on petitioner Mukesh, a resident of Dholiya in Bikaner district, and directed him to deposit the amount in the Child Secretariat bank account within four weeks, failing which the court office would register a suo motu contempt case against him. The bench examined whether persons in a live-in relationship under an agreement, while either or both parties have a subsisting valid marriage, can maintain such a petition. The petitioner claimed that he and the woman, referred to as "X" in the order, were in love and had entered into an agreement on October 1, 2026, to live together. Both were adults. According to the petition, they had approached the court seeking protection and submitted representations to authorities, citing apprehension of threats from the private respondents. He alleged that, despite the representations and a police complaint, no steps had been taken to secure her release from alleged illegal detention. During the hearing, his counsel submitted that the woman was legally married to another man but argued that the agreement entitled the petitioner to maintain the habeas corpus petition. He contended that adults had the right to live together even if the woman's earlier marriage continued to subsist. Opposing the petition, the state submitted that the petitioner had suppressed the woman's existing marriage and the birth of a three-month-old child from it. It argued that he had not acquired the legal status of her husband and that the agreement could not confer a legal right upon him. The bench observed that live-in relationships could broadly be divided into two categories: those in which neither party has a subsisting valid marriage with another person, and those in which either or both parties remain married. It noted that the legal consequences of the latter required consideration of the existing spouse's rights. The court said, "The mere fact that two adults have voluntarily entered into an agreement to live together does not, by itself, establish that every such relationship is entitled to recognition as a relationship in the nature of marriage." It observed that the rights arising from an existing marriage could not be disregarded because one spouse had entered into a live-in relationship with another person. The court also noted that statutory rights had to be considered while examining the consequences of such a relationship. The court said a person could not claim locus standi on the basis of an agreement hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The bench also found that the petition did not disclose any prima facie material indicating that the woman had been illegally detained by her parents or relatives....