Dowry law applies to live-in couple: SC

well this issue needs to be discussed  and dealt with a caution.

m not in agreement with SC opinion on this issue, well Domestic Violence provisions can be applied but S.498-A IPC application in such a situation does not appeal to me atleast.

if such has to be the interpretation of law then lets do away with the religious ceremonies for marriage....

broader definition of live in relationship is required here alongwith sufficient laws to deal with such type of laws.

I am in complete agreement with SC decision.  All gender laws are class legislations. The interpretation applied by SC by not following the strict letter of law but understanding the object and purpose of the legislation is the need of the hour.  

The spirit of the  SC Judgement is that the Dowry in any form ,  Dowry Demand  before marriage or after marriage  and even at the stage of the negotiations for marriage and any  efforts for  marraige Settlement failed  for want of demanded  Dowry,   comes under the Defintion of the Dowry and it is  an offecnce !

I agree with mr. Rao. and further add that  there may be live in relation and a proposal or planning for marital knot and there may be demand of dowery .

INDIA BUSINESS WORLD - 1st May To 15th May - 2009

SUPREME COURT: GIRLFRIEND IS NOT RELATIVE, CAN'T BE PROSECUTED FOR DOWRY

The Supreme Court has ruled that a girlfriend or a concubine is not a relative and therefore cannot be prosecuted for an offence under section 498 (A) of the IPC (cruelty for dowry).

A bench comprising Justices S P Sinha and R M Lodha, while allowing the appeal of U Suvetha, the alleged girlfriend of Tutus Gunaraj the husband of the complainant, in its judgment noted," By no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be relative.

"The word relative brings within its purview a status. v Such a status must be conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise." Suvetha had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Madras High court August 1, 2008, which dismissed her petition for discharging the case.

Justice Sinha, while writing the 18-page judgment for the bench, however, noted," It is not the case of the first informant that the appellant had any role to play with regard to demand of dowry.

The word cruelty having being defined in terms of the aforesaid explanation, no other meaning, can be attributed there too.

Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion , would not attract the wrath of section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code.

In the absence of any statutory definition, the term relative must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood." The apex court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and concluded by saying, "We would assume that the term husband would bring within its fold a person who is said to have contracted a marriage with another woman and subjected her to cruelty."

well, as far as application of the s.498a in the cases of the live in relationsship is concerned, i do not consort with hon'ble justice Arjit Pasayat's view. because of the very nature of law, which starts with the very word 'cruelty by the husband or his relatives.' the law is only applicable in the cases were the marriage has been solemnized, not in the cases of live in relationship. it is totally unjustified, to provide a red carpet treatment to one set of people and to turn the blind eye towards another set. in this case, the SC has not laid down any new law rather has misintepreted the provisions of the penal code, which prima facie tells that it is applicable only in the cases of valid marriage.

Mumbai: A woman need not prove marriage to claim maintenance from her husband under the Criminal Procedure Code, she just has to provide evidence of having lived together with the man for a number of years, the Bombay high court has ruled. 

   Eighteen years after a neglected wife sought maintenance from her husband who disputed the marriage, Justice Abhay Oka asked a Pune resident to pay Rs 500 every month to the woman, including arrears from 1991. Under Section 125 of the CrPc, the court can order a man to pay maintenance to his neglected wife or parents. 

   The case before the HC was filed by Smriti who had married Pune resident Nilesh in 1981 and had a daughter from the marriage. 

   Nilesh subsequently married another woman and allegedly started ill-treating Smriti. She then moved the magistrate’s court seeking maintenance. Nilesh denied that he married Smriti and the subordinate courts agreed that she had failed to prove the wedding. The courts rejected her plea. 

   The high court said that the lower courts “proceeded on an erroneous footing that it was necessary for the woman to strictly establish the marriage by establishing performance of religious rites’’. 

   The high court cited Supreme Court verdicts which had ruled that under CrPc, the standard of proof of marriage was not as stringent as the objective was to provide a woman with “speedy remedy to obtain maintenance’’. 

   The HC further observed: “The Supreme Court has held that if the (woman) succeeds in showing that she had lived together with the (man) as wife and husband, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses.’’ 

   Justice Oka took into consideration the evidence of the sarpanch and the village police patil who stated that the couple lived together for seven to eight years.
 

Legally, Bombay HC's decision can not be faulted. Presumption of marriage in a live in relation for long time is justified.