Live in relationship
Guest
(Querist) 03 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
if any person ( boy & girl ) are living in touch with each other and also they are involve in sexual relationship since 7 yrs. then can any of them file on this relationship for marriage if their parents are against of their wish.
Q.1 )what rights have given to such kind of relationship?
Q.2 ) does they can demand for any compensation on this relationship?
Q.3 ) does this relationship given any protection in law.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 03 December 2011
1. Live in relationship is not a marriage but definitely it can become a base for marriage. Such lady is entitled for maintenance allowance.
2. No.
3. Protection qua maintenance and protection is available as per provisions of DV Act.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 03 December 2011
1. Live in relationship is not a marriage and cannot become a base for marriage.
Yes, she can claim for maintenance & residence. DV ACT.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Read Mumbai Mirror 10-8-2010 news paper, i send herewith the copy of Live ibn Relationship what HH High Court Judges ruled.
also read this:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 977 OF 2010
Inderpal Mohindersingh Walia. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents
Mr.
Bhavesh Parmar i/b M/s. V. Mishra and Company for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State.
None for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.CORAM
: A.M. KHANWILKAR and
U.D. SALVI, JJ.
DATE : 24th August, 2010.
P.C.
1 The Petitioner has filed Habeas Corpus Petition and prays
for direction against Respondent to produce Harmandeep Kaur before
this Court and to issue such orders as may be necessary to protect the
life and property of the Petitioner and said Harmandeep Kaur.
2 By order dated 12th July, 2010, this Court issued notice to
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the assumption that the said Harmandeep
Kaur was in their custody as at present. The said Respondents were
also directed to produce their daughter Harmandeep Kaur before the
Court on the next date of hearing. Pursuant to the notice, the
2 6 wp.977.10
Respondents have engaged advocate, who has entered his
Vakalatnama. However, when the matter was called out in the morning
session, he was not present in Court nor the noticee Respondent
Nos.
5 and 6 were present in Court. By way of indulgence, the matter was
kept back to be called out after lunch break. Even after the lunch break,
the situation is no different. Considering the allegation in the Petition and
taking overall view of the matter, primafacie,
it appears that Respondent
Nos.5 and 6 are trying to protract the present proceedings for reasons
best known to them. In the circumstances, to secure their presence and
in turn, make them to produce Harmandeep Kaur before the Court, which
is the relief claimed in this Petition, the only option available to us is to
issue bailable warrants against the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which is
made returnable on 06th September, 2010. We direct the Respondent
No.2 to ensure that the bailable warrant in a sum of Rs.10,000/are
executed well in time.
3 We hope and trust that the Respondent No.8 –
Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, Panjab shall extend all possible help
and assistance to the team deputed by the Respondent No.2 for
enforcing the order as passed today. All concerned to act on the
authenticated copy of this order duly attested by the Section Officer.
Ordered accordingly.
[ U.D. SALVI, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 03 December 2011
Mr.Shroff,
The case law you have quoted is about a marriage between the prohibited relations. The petitioner admits a marriage. The divorce case is pending.
Where as mere live in relationship does not come under the DV Act. The DV act clearly says there must be a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Only when, Live in relationship in the nature of marriage, will attract the DV act.
Where as a live in relations without having a nature of marriage, does not come under the DV Act.
In other words, if the boy and girl live together either by marriage or in the intention to marry, the DV Act will attract.
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 03 December 2011
Mr. Arunagiri:
I don't agree with you. In DV Act it is Domestic Relationship and not marriage. In the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the expression `domestic relationship' includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship `in the nature of marriage'. The question what is the meaning of the expression `a relationship in the nature of marriage' has been decided by SC in Velusamy case and a live-in-relationship is clearly in the nature of marriage.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 03 December 2011
Ans to ::
Q.1 )Maintenance and right to shared house.
Q.2 ) the very question is not clear?What compensation you are talking about?????
Q.3 )patronage of 125Cr.P.C. and DV Act.
Sanjeev
(Expert) 03 December 2011
The girl can charge the boy for rape on the false pretext of marriage.
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 03 December 2011
Mr. Prabhakar
125 Cr. PC shall not apply in case of live in relation
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 03 December 2011
i stand amended as call given by Mr.Harbhajan Singh Thukral .
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 03 December 2011
Mr.Thukral,
I am reproducing the judgement you referred
"34. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriag8e to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us 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'
35. 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"
Mr.Thukral,
I have given my opinion, my opinion is strengthened by the judgement of the supreme court.
Once again I repeat my previous opnion,
"Where as a live in relations without having a nature of marriage, does not come under the DV Act."
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 04 December 2011
Mr.Thukral,
I think you have missed my previous post.
I understand that you are concentrating on DV act cases.
I will be happy if you could show any other authority to show that mere living in relationship will attract DV Act.
If there is any such authority, with that I will update my knowledge.
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 04 December 2011
I have no challenge to your knowledge but I was referring to the facts of query where a boy and girl are living together and intend to marry also. From such facts it can not be gathered that boy is keeping the girl as a 'keep' and relationship does not appear to be in the nature of marriage. The conditions of a relation in the nature of marriage as described by the SC appeared to be satisfied in the facts described by the author i.e.
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
You are one of the members of the LCI I have looked forward to to enhance my poor knowledge of law and I am sorry if I have offended you.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 04 December 2011
Dear Authors!
I advise you duo to marry even against wish of parents to make us comfortable to think about your rights else "the relation" that you duo are carrying on since last 7 years is yet at a very nascent stage that any one of us can speak any thing with certainty.It is so because rules follow problems and not problems follow rules.
When duo like you shall out number those called spouses to day, only law stated by me will be right and every answer opposing that will be wrong is my promise.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 04 December 2011
Mr.Thukral,
I never that that you have offended me. Not at all. You have taken efforts in citing a authority to strengthen your opinion.
It is only a sharing of knowledge.
As the topic is interesting I thought of continuing the same.
The author had never said, that the living in relationship is in the nature of marriage. The author had simply mentioned living in relationship and their sexual relationship.
It may be a latter thought that they want to marry. This author says some problems with their parents, not between them.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 04 December 2011
THANK YOU SIR.. like "FACE BOOK" here dont have LIKE option., i like mr.jsdn's comment.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 06 December 2011
Nothing more to add.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
