India is a country, which is slowly opening its doors for western
ideas and lifestyles and one of the most crucial episodes amongst it, is
the concept of Live-in relationships. Many has been said and debated on
the concept of Live-in relationships in India. It is important to
understand the said concept from legal view point. In the year 2010 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had rendered few land mark judgments with
regard to the live-in relationship.
CHANMUNIYA Vs VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUSHWAHA
Judgment date: October 07, 2010
Facts: The
Appellant, Chanmuniya was married to Ram Saran and had 2 daughters. Ram
Saran died on 07.03.1992. Chanmuniya married Virendra Kumar Singh
Kushwaha, the younger brother of her deceased husband, in accordance
with the local custom of Katha and Sindur. They were living as husband
and wife together, Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha started harassing and
torturing Chanmuniya, she asked for maintenance but Kushwaha refused
saying that she wasn’t his legally wedded wife.
The Uttar Pradesh High Court also dismissed her petition on the
ground that 125 Cr.P.C is available only to the legally wedded wife;
thereafter she approached the apex court to seek justice.
Decision: Women in
Live-in relationships are also entitled to all the reliefs given in the
said Act (The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005).
Important observations:
The courts should enforce express contracts between non-marital
partners except to the extent that the contract is explicitly founded on
the consideration of meretricious sexual services. In the absence of
express contracts, the courts should inquire into the conduct of the
parties to determine whether that conduct demonstrates an implied
contract, agreement of partnership or joint venture, or some other tacit
understanding between the parties.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 assigns a
very broad and expansive definition to the term ‘domestic abuse’ to
include within its purview even ‘economic abuse’. Economic abuse
includes deprivation of financial and economic resources. Section 20 of
the Act allows the Magistrate to direct the respondent to pay monetary
relief to the aggrieved person, who is the harassed woman, for expenses
incurred and losses suffered by her, which may include, but is not
limited to, maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 gives a very
wide interpretation to the term ‘domestic relationship’ as to take it
outside the confines of a marital relationship, and even includes
Live-in relationships in the nature of marriage within the definition of
‘domestic relationship’. Therefore, women in Live-in relationship are
also entitled to all the reliefs given in the said Act, they should also
be allowed in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
VELUSAMY Vs D PATCHAIAMMAL
Judgment date: October 21, 2010
The Hon’ble Supreme court in the above case observed that a woman in a
live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfills
certain parameters, the Supreme court had observed that merely spending
weekends together or a one night 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 women, even if not married, has to
fulfill the following four requirements:
- The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
- They must be of legal age to marry.
- They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage.
- They must be voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
The Supreme court observed, in our opinion not all Live-in
relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to
get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned 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 sexual purpose and/or
as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the
nature of marriage.
The Apex court passed the judgment while setting aside the concurrent
orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding
Rs 500 maintenance to 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.
The Apex court also observed, “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.
S. KHUSHBOO VS KANNIAMMAL
Judgment date: April 28, 2010
In appeal filed by the well know actress, Khushboo seeking quashing
of criminal proceedings filed against her mostly in the state of Tamil
Nadu, for the remarks made by her in an interview to a leading new
magazine. The Hon’ble Supreme court opined that a man and woman living
together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence.
The Apex court said there was no law which prohibits Live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.
The Supreme court, held that Live-in relationship is permissible only
in unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex. In case, one of the
said persons is married, man may be guilty of offence of adultery and it
would amount to an offence under section 497 IPC.
OTHER NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY SUPREME COURTS
In S.P.S Balasubramanyam Vs Suruthaya @ Andali Padayachi and Ors. AIR
1992 SC 756, the Supreme court held that if man and woman are living
under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be a
presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act, that they Live as
husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment