LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     21 October 2010

Live-in partner cant claim for maintenance SC Breaking New

Live-in partner can’t claim for maintenance: SC

21 Oct 2010 11:09:50 AM IST




Source:   

https://english.samaylive.com/nation-news/676475825/live-in-partner can-rsquo-t-claim-for-maintenance-sc.html



 



In a significant decision, the Supreme Court set aside right of a live-in partner to claim maintenance.

 

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had ruled that in live-in relationship, a woman is entitled to all reliefs, including maintenance.

 

The apex court ruled that a woman partner of a live-in relationship can’t claim maintenance in case of splitting.

 

The Supreme Court had referred the case to larger bench after observing that an adulterous relationship may become matrimonial by consent.

 

The apex court was referred the case to larger bench after finding complexity related to the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Section 125 CrPC.

 

The apex court’s ruling came on a plea of a woman, who was split with her partner after 14-years of live-in relationship. The woman claimed for maintenance after spending 14-year with a man.

 

The Court observed that marriage is a holly ritual in India and live-in relationship can’t be treated as wedding. Allowing maintenance in live-in relationship will raise question on validity of marriage.

 

Also re. thread post:



https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/living-relationship-validity-25585.asp?1=1&offset=5#reply





PS.: There goes hopes of thousands of women in India on alien concept called 'Palimony"



Learning

 8 Replies

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     21 October 2010

SC lays down conditions for women seeking maintenance in live-in relationships

PTI, Oct 21, 2010, 01.58pm IST

 

 

Source:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-lays-down-conditions-for-women-seeking-maintenance-in-live-in-relationships/articleshow/6786239.cms

 


NEW DELHI: A woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfils certain parameters, the Supreme Court held today while observing that merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship.

 

A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur said that in order to get maintenance, a woman, even if not married, has to fulfill the following four requirements:

 

(1) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses

(2) They must be of legal age to marry

(3) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried

(4) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

 

 

"In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act). To get such benefits the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied and this has to be proved by evidence.

 

 

"If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for s*xual purpose and or as a servant, it would not in our opinion be a relationship in the nature of marriage," the court said.

 

 

"No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act) but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live-in relationship'. The court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute," the bench observed.

 

 

The apex court passed the judgement while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to D Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the appellant D Velusamy.

 

 

Velusamy had challenged the two courts order on the ground that he was already married to one Laxmi and Patchiammal was not married to him though he lived with her for some time.

 

 

Interpreting section 125 of CrPC relating to maintenance, the apex court said besides a legally-wedded wife, dependent parents and children alone are entitled to maintenance from a man.

 

 

But the Domestic Violence Act expanded the scope of maintenance by using the expression 'domestic relationship' which includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship 'in the nature of marriage'.

 

 

"Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct discussion of this court on the interpretation of this expression, we think it necessary to interpret because a large number of cases will be coming up before the court in our country on this point and hence an authoritative decision is required," the bench said.

 

 

According to the apex court, the legislation was enacted in view of the new social phenomenon in the country in the form of live-in relationship.

 

 

"In feudal society, s*xual relationship between man and woman outside marriage was totally taboo and regarded with disgust and horror as depicted in Leo Tolstoy's novel 'Anna Karenina', Gustave Flaubert's novel 'Madame Bobary' and the novels of the great Bengali writer Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay.

 

 

"However, Indian society is changing and this change has been reflected and recognised by Parliament by enacting the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005," the bench said.

 

 

The apex court discussed at length the various US courts' rulings on grant of maintenance under the doctrine of 'Palimony' (pals) under which divergent rulings were passed vis-a-vis maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship.

 

 

The bench recalled the California superior court's ruling in Marvin versus Marvin (1976) case wherein maintenance was awarded to the woman in live-in relationship.

 

 

The case related to the famous film actor Lee Marvin with whom a lady Michelle lived for many years without marrying him and was then deserted following which she claimed p alimony.

 

 

In the present case, the apex court said that since the two lower courts had been given an opportunity to Velusamy's first wife Laxmi to be heard, the directions passed by it was erroneous hence it remanded the matter back to the matrimonial court to examine whether Laxmi was the legally wedded wife of Velusamy.

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     21 October 2010

Now to the point take: With this Hon’ble SC judgment, Indian men have no fear of having to be slapped by maintenance under DV act if they have casual s*xual relationship with woman.


Or even a 14 years relationship as in this case. So this landmark Judgment is a major slap in face of feminists (researchers and few advocates peddling maint. to wife ragas openly here in forum messages) and who were hoping to get SHWB (Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill) passed to conquer the Corporate world also.


Few unique emerging quotable quotes from the Judgment:


”No body traps a women to live-in with a man, it is the lure of easy money and squatting at a man’s home with all comforts that makes women come to men and live as in live-in!”


”Today in India no women is abala and if any then they are intentionally made by her own family members (including WCD / NCW) grouped by certain vested sections of advocates collective community PERIOD”


 

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     16 November 2010

No body traps a women to live-in with a man, it is the lure of easy money and squatting at a man’s home with all comforts that makes women come to men and live as in live-in!”

 

agree with this...


(Guest)

Yes, agree with you .No body traps a women to live-in with a man.

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     16 November 2010

 

hello kushan

 

why did u show ur avtaar as a dog in a lawyer's clothes?:)

do u mean to say that lawyers are faithful?


(Guest)

I know that somebody likes a dog  frequently(and post a thread also) so i wear a new avatar to show my faith to them.

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     16 November 2010

intelligent reply by kushan.................but why u changed ur avtaar now?:P

ok....now someone    will say " i thanked kushan thru thank u symbol and thanked him by writing also"...so kushan and i are the same persons;)

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     16 November 2010

 then another fool will come and say"oh avi****,you have the mind of a detective and lawyer"

then the fool's friend will jump with joy on being praised..


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register