125 crpc in live in relation
Rakesh
(Querist) 21 August 2015
This query is : Resolved
Actually it is a case of Live in relation & a child thereafter.
I am a married man. But I have been in love affair with lady who is also married.
We were in living relation for 1 year and had a baby.
But due to temperamental issues, we mutually decided to break this relation.
She earns handsome salary.
Now she has claimed 125 crpc claim in family court.
I have so many proofs to show that she was aware of my marital status and she is also married even before we came to know each other.
Pl suggest what should be my stand???
Pl. suggest with regard to 125 crpc only, it she and child entitled for that or NOT?
Jayashree Hariharan
(Expert) 21 August 2015
It was recently held that persons in live-in relationships are also entitled to maintenance.
But it depends on the facts of the case, since yours is a bit different.
Guest
(Expert) 21 August 2015
Had An Affair ,Given A Child Now want To Escape Just Like That and Counting Her Income. Better Sort it Out Amicably Or you would Face the Consequences
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 21 August 2015
Married man live in relationship with a married woman and have a child born to them.What were the spouses of each other doing?
Now after enjoying UR life decide to break the relationship.
Better come out with the detailed facts for a solution.
How are U going to justify your act if any legal complications arise.
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS MAINTENANCE FOR LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP:
The Supreme Court said if a live-in relationship breaks down, the man is bound to pay maintenance to the woman and the children born from the relationship.
A bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and A M Sapre dismissed a petition by a man who claimed that since he was already married before entering into the live-in relationship, his partner could not claim the status of a wife to be legally entitled to maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act.
The petition was filed by 'Z', who works in Bollywood, challenging an order of the Bombay high court, which had held that his live-in partner of nine years and the child were entitled to maintenance after their relationship ended. 'Z' argued that he was legally married to another woman for the last 49 years, hence his live-in partner was not entitled to maintenance as she was well aware of his marital status.
READ ALSO: Couple living together will be presumed married, SC rules
He said his live-in partner was a 'call girl' and alleged that she had decided to live with him on her own wish since 1986. They lived together for nine years and a child was born to them in 1988.
Justices Sen and Sapre slammed 'Z' for referring to his erstwhile live-in partner as a 'call girl' and said he was a philanderer as he was living with another woman despite being married.
"How absurd is your argument. You yourself went for the live-in relationship but now you are branding the poor lady as call girl. You are such an idiot that you went for a relationship. You are yourself a philanderer as you got into a relationship despite being married," the bench said.
READ ALSO: Children born of live-in relationships are legitimate, SC rules
In this case, the woman had first approached the family court in Bandra for declaration of their relationship as husband and wife. The court, however, refused her plea after 'Z' told the court that he was already married to someone else. She then approached the HC which had said she was eligible to claim maintenance for herself and her daughter. 'Z' challenged the HC order in the apex court.
The court in its various orders has recognized the concept of live-in relationship in society. It has gone to the extent of saying that if a man and woman "lived like husband and wife" for a long period and had children, the judiciary would presume that the two were legally married.
In April, the apex court had said continuous cohabitation of a couple would give rise to the presumption of a valid marriage and it would be for the opposite party to prove that they were not legally married.
READ ALSO: Can't keep live-in relations outside purview of rape, HC rules
"It is well settled that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a long time. However, the presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. A heavy burden lies on a party who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin," it had said.
Guest
(Expert) 21 August 2015
A Good Advocate of the Lady Could Make You Fit For Sec 375,376,354 and 509 IPC and the Relevant Sections of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act !872.Simple Fact would be Raping and Ruining Her Married Life and giving False Assurance to Marriage to Avoid the Rape Complaint and Now the Lady is Left with A Child Also and also Hidden the Fact Of His Married Status.Please Ask her to Consult A Good Advocate Or Approach Here.Raping A Married Lady Is Nothing But Crime.Sort It Out Amicably.In Simple Words Other Man's Money and Other Man's Wife Always Would be a Poison To your Life.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 22 August 2015
The woman is entitled for maintenance and you should pay for the maintenance of her child. It is advisable to settle the matter amicably.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 22 August 2015
Child is due to live in relation of both, you are liable to pay maintenance.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 23 August 2015
When both of you are married, how can you establish live-in relationship? It is nothing but adultery and your spouses will take on both you. The query is unbelievable and time pass query testing the knowledge of experts. Even if it is real problem, this portal is not for supporting illegal activities and suggest escape method. You will have to engage an advocate for payment.
P. Venu
(Expert) 26 August 2015
Your profile suggests that, so far, you have asked 23 queries of dubious nature. May be you are having fun with the Law or the Experts or both.
