LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     22 October 2010

NO ALIMONY to Live-In Partners : SC

NO ALIMONY to  Live-In Partners : SC
SC says that in four conditions Live-In partners can be provided ALIMONY to their female partners.  The female partners would be even someone elses wife (proxy spouse).  Even fixed period Contract Marriages (now in the offing)  could be covered for Alimony, as now sanctioned by SC conditions.

 

ADULTERY REDIFINED :  SC says "merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a domestic relationship".   Which also means that one-night stands  could ALSO NOT amount to adultery.

 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

 

SC limits live-in partner’s right to alimony
( Times of India,  Mumbai Edition, 22nd October, 2010,  page no. 14 )


SC Puts 4 Conditions For A Live-In To Be Under Purview Of Domestic Violence
1)   A live-in 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

 

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday pruned the scope of live-in relationships under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, thus preventing many women who have been dumped by their partners from claiming maintenance.   The SC hinged its judgment on the fact that Parliament, while enacting the DV Act, had mentioned “relationships in the nature of marriage” and not “live-in relationships” and said both were quite different from each other.


A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur culled out four important grounds from the definition of ‘common law marriage’ posted on the web pages of Wikipedia and said that arrangements commonly understood as live-in relationship must satisfy these conditions to be recognised as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the DV Act. When a live-in partners satisfied these four conditions in addition to living together under one roof, only then could a deserted woman move an application before the concerned area magistrate seeking maintenance from the man who deserted her, said the court. The SC was aware that laying down these conditions would exclude a lot of live-in partners from claiming maintenance from their male partners in case of desertion. “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, but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law,” said Justice Katju, who wrote the judgment. The SC also stated that "merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a domestic relationship" under the DV Act. Moreover, “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” under the Act.


This judgment came in a case where a woman, D Patchaiammal, had a two-year relationship with an already married man D Velusamy, who later deserted her to be with his wife Lakshmi and family. Twelve years after the alleged desertion, Patchaiammal moved a Coimbatore family court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The family court held that Velusamy was married to Patchaiammal and not to Lakshmi and ordered payment of alimony. The Madras HC upheld the family court's order. Velusamy appealed against it.


The SC set aside the trial court and HC orders saying without giving notice to Lakshmi, the courts could not have come to a finding that Velusamy was married to Patchaiammal because if he was married to Lakshmi before, he could not have married Patchaiammal without divorcing Lakshmi. It said that Patchaiammal would also have to explain why she filed the maintenance plea under Section 125 of CrPC after a lapse of 12 years. The SC remanded the matter back to the family court asking it to determine all these issues afresh.
 



Learning

 2 Replies

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Advocacy)     22 October 2010

yes .

a good for all.

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     23 October 2010

M I R C H I     L A G I


SC s  use of word    KEEP    upsets  addl solicitor-general
( Times of India,  Mumbai Edition, 23rd October, 2010,  page no. 01 )


New Delhi:   India’s first woman additional solicitor general (ASG) Indira Jaising on Friday strongly protested against the use of the words “keep’’ and “one-night stand’’ in the Supreme Court’s judgment on livein relationships and caustically told its author, Justice Markandey Katju, that it was in very poor taste.


   Jaising had an important role in drafting the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was at the core of the judgment given by a bench comprising Justices Katju and T S Thakur on Thursday. While laying down four conditions for a livein relationship to come within the ambit of the DV Act, the bench had said one-night stands, weekend relationships and ‘keeps’ would not qualify as domestic relationships.


   It was Justice Katju, in his inimitable style, who provoked Jaising as soon as she stood up to argue a case, by asking: “So Ms Jaising, you are the author of Domestic Violence Act’’. And that was enough for the ASG to burst out with her objections to gender-biased words used in the judgment.


   “Supreme Court judgments are cited across the world. But this one possibly will tell the world that in In dia, women are regarded as ‘keep’ or ‘rakhels’. I strongly object to the use of these words in your judgment. I do not expect this from the Supreme Court in the 21st century. I feel offended by it,’’ Jaising said in a single breath.


‘Concubine better than keep?’        (NOTICE the TAUNTING by a SC judge)


   As the Indian representative in the UN Committee for Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), ASG Indira Jaising had reasons to feel worried about the negative impact the judgment would have in the international forum.


   While Justice Katju asked her to focus on the case at hand, reminding her that livein relations and Domestic Violence Act were not the subject matter,  Justice Thakur inquired whether use of the word “concubine’’ instead of “keep’’ would have been proper.   sJaisingh was calmer but more distraught after the sparring.   She wondered whether the court would have used similar words for men. She drew a comparison of Thursday’s ruling with the famous Visakha judgment of SC.   The latter is still the guiding law, even after nearly a decade-and-a-half, to protect women from s*xual harassment at the workplace.


   She said someone should file an application seeking expunction of these words from the judgment, thus indicating that though she had nothing against the merit of the judgment, her objection was to the use of certain words that described women in a rather derogatatory way.
Question is :  WHY SOMEONE SHOULD FILE.... WHY NOT JAISINGH HERSELF

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register