Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Not all live-in affairs are ‘relationship in the nature of marriage'

 

Not all live-in affairs are ‘relationship in the nature of marriage', says Supreme Court

J. Venkatesan  Friday, Oct 22, 2010

NEW DELHI: If a man keeps a woman, this relationship will not be in the nature of marriage for her to claim the benefit of live-in to get maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005, the Supreme Court has held.

 

A Bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur pointed out that the Act had used the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” and not “live-in relationship” for the grant of benefit to affected women. “In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage' [for women] to get the benefit of the Act. A ‘relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that the couple, although not formally married, 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, including being unmarried. They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.”

 

(Earlier this month, Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly referred to a larger Bench the issue relating to grant of maintenance to women in live-in relationships; whether it could be done under Section 125 CrPC or the PWDV Act.)

Writing the judgment in this case, Justice Katju said: “Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship'.

 

“To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. 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. Parliament has used the expression ‘relationship in the nature of marriage' and not ‘live-in relationship'. The court, in the grab of interpretation, cannot change the language of the statute.”

 

The Bench quoted the judgments of various courts in the United States. “In the USA the expression ‘palimony' was coined, which means grant of maintenance to a woman who has lived for a substantial period of time with a man without marrying him, and is then deserted by him. Although there is no statutory basis for grant of palimony in the USA, the courts there which have granted it have granted it on a contractual basis.”

 

However, “in the case before us we are not called upon to decide whether in our country there can be a valid claim for palimony on the basis of a contract, express or implied, written or oral, since no such case was set up by the respondent in her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC.”

 

D. Velusamy was aggrieved over a Madras High Court judgment upholding a Coimbatore trial court order, awarding maintenance of500 to respondent D. Patchaiammal, declaring her his wife, though his first marriage with Lakshmi was not dissolved.

 

The Bench set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Family Court Judge, Coimbatore, and remanded the matter to the Family Court Judge to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of its observations.

 From;https://www.hindu.com/2010/10/22/stories/2010102257190100.htm



Learning

 28 Replies


(Guest)

I prefer a liv in guy dependent on my earnings.


(Guest)

Liv in guys are much better. If bored you can always dump them and new ones.

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     03 November 2011

Kushan,


I already discussed in details 18 days before on 5th. Oct. 2010 herein LCI above news dated 22 Oct. 2010 and yours is repeat posting that also after more than 1 year in case you still sleeping out here................
 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Re-Should-a-concubine-get-maintenance-SC-to-examine-the-que--25295.asp#120599

 

BTW USA Courts has already reversed 'palimony' in case it makes you wake up and Lordship Katju is no more there to rake my earlier takes now...............


(Guest)

Why are women treated as liv ins. WOMEN HAVE GUY LIVE INS WHOM THEY MAINTAIN.

zimmerzapper (student)     03 November 2011

Originally posted by :Nina [ J.D ]
" Why are women treated as liv ins. WOMEN HAVE GUY LIVE INS WHOM THEY MAINTAIN. "

 

 

can you point one case?


(Guest)

I'm willing to maintain a creep who'll be by doormat ,polish my shoes...be good househusband..oops good house liv in. BUT there is a problem, I'm not finding the right creep.;)

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     03 November 2011

@ Zimmerzapper

Ha ha

ROTFL

Why you want the jinni (so called abala naris) to be out of her adopted western culture shackles by knowing about just one case in B & W in public domains J 


 

1 Like

(Guest)

Katju J would make a good liv in but he is earning.


(Guest)

Tajob: IF you are referring to me then I was not born,bred, educated in India .In short I'm not a local.


(Guest)

@TAJOB: What are your woman in India doing? Putting their hubbys in jails? I suspect you were expecting this outburst considering your long posts lol!

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     03 November 2011

Originally posted by :Nina [ J.D ]
"
Tajob: IF you are referring to me then I was not born,bred, educated in India .In short I'm not a local.
"

@ desi devi ji


How can I dare tell a desi NRI such things when probably you were one of the attendee of :-)


“After retirement, I want to keep my wife comfortable, live a modest middle class lifestyle.
How can I do it? In my salary it will take 200 years to collect that much money,”
Justice Katju has said in an address to Indian diaspora in California, US, in June 2011 and few desi public females do love follow his after steps which in my view is nothign wrong.................

 

J

{Did you not see I mentioned @ Zimmerzapper in my above message }


(Guest)

@ Nina

 

In that case,you can keep a male domestic servant.

 

Also,when you are interacting in an Indian public forum,it's always better to talk in context with Indian values.Kindly do not impose your selfish,westernised thoughts here,where you treat  man(or a woman) as a doormat.

 

It's surprising that you are offended by Indian women who file fake cases against husbands and thus treat them as doormats.

 

But at the same time,you want a doormat male partner for yourself.

 

And I thought people with hypocritic thinking are found only in India;(

1 Like

(Guest)

@Tajob: oh my poor poor boy ,I'll pray for your troubles to end. Amen LOL!


(Guest)

@princess: Oh I think I better get out of here. I found this place on digg.