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:
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.
4. 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 COURT
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.
In Adan Mohan Singh Vs Rajni Kant, the Supreme Court observed “The
courts have consistently held that the law presumes in favor of marriage and
against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a
number of years. However, such presumption can be rebutted by leading
unimpeachable evidence. (vide: Mohabbat Ali Khan Vs Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, AIR
1929 PC 135; Gokalchand Vs Parvin Kumar, AIR 1952 SC 231; S.P.S Balasubramanyam
Vs Suruttayan (1994) 1 SCC 460; Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali Vs Eknath
Gajanan Kularni (1996) 7 SCC 681; and Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs Setti Gangadhara
Swamy and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 244).
Prepared
by: S. Hemanth
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete