Whether a lady residing as live in relationship is entitled to maintance u/s 125 cr.pc
JAVED AFZAL
(Querist) 27 October 2016
This query is : Resolved
Dear Expert,
Will u please guide me Whether a lady residing as live in relationship is entitled to maintance u/s 125 cr.pc
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 27 October 2016
please give facts of the case instead of setting question paper.
Guest
(Expert) 27 October 2016
No guidance in the absence of details of the case and showing your own concern with the case, as to why you are interested to ask.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 27 October 2016
What is the opinion of your own counsel!
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 27 October 2016
Academic query, state material facts of the problem if any.
How are you concerned with the query?
looks like examination question.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 27 October 2016
Academic query.
rajeev sharma
(Expert) 27 October 2016
pl read sec 125 and you will find your answer
JAVED AFZAL
(Querist) 27 October 2016
Dear Sir,
I filed a complaint U/s 125 Cr.P.C. i am from lady side. The lady left her husband about 20 years ago and married to another person and reside with second husband. Second husband filed reply that She is not her wife but a servant. I produced photocy of ration card and voter card in secondary evidence. In the argument respondent pleaded that she cannot claim maintance from him but claim maintance from her first husband. That is why i need citation whether a live in relation entitled maintance. Pls provide me citation and other necessary guidence
Guest
(Expert) 27 October 2016
Ask your own lawyer.
You are from lady side, BUT WITH WHAT RELATION?
JAVED AFZAL
(Querist) 27 October 2016
I am in the panel of district free legal aid
Guest
(Expert) 27 October 2016
Not convincing.
If you are in the panel of district free legal aid, you can be well qualified to handle the case. If unable to handle the case, you could not have taken the case in hand. You could also have asked your colleagues in the panel of district free legal aid for citations.
Moreover, when you say the lady married to other person and he is her 2nd husband, where the question arises for the 1st husband to bear maintenance? Mere the statement of 2nd husband cannot be relied. That has to be proved beyond doubt.
Still further, how the lady could rise up for maintenance after a long gap of 20 years? She can never be a servant, if living for the last 20 years with his 2nd husband.
Also, when already filed a complaint u/s 125, you may better wait for the judgment. Members of LCI cannot be substituted for the judge to decide.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 27 October 2016
Full case file need to be referred, If you are able to prove that she was married to second person, she can get maintenance.
Citation not provided.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 28 October 2016
A woman in live in relationship cannot apply for maintenance under section 125 of CrPc. The relief provided under the section is available to only legally wedded wife.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 October 2016
Expert Mr. M V Gupta has provided inputs to you.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 28 October 2016
Repeat, legally married wife can claim maintenance from husband.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 29 October 2016
I respectfully disagree with expert Sh. M V Gupta on the issue of maintenance to a lady who has a "live-in-relationship" with a man, for quite a reasonable time, behaving/ residing like husband and wife, as decided by Apex Court in various case(s).
Guest
(Expert) 29 October 2016
I fully agree with Dr. J C Vashista. Even when I questioned, "how the lady could rise up for maintenance after a long gap of 20 years? She can never be a servant, if living for the last 20 years with his 2nd husband," the author remained silent on the issue.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 29 October 2016
Dear Sh. PS Dhingra ji,
Thanks a lot for agreeing with me.
Warm regards
Guest
(Expert) 29 October 2016
You are welcome Dr. Vashista.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 29 October 2016
Expert Dr. J.C Vashista has appropriated with pointers to Apex Court.
Fully agreed.
The author may search.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 29 October 2016
This is with reference to the observations of Dr. vasishta. My reply was with reference to the specific question raised by the querist whether a woman in live in relationship is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPc. A reading of the section clearly indicates that the relief (maintenance) is available, inter alia, to "wife, unable to maintain herself". Explanation to the section provides-- "wife" means a person who has been divorced by or has obtained divorce from her husband and has not remarried". As such I assert that the relief under section 125 of CrPc is awailable to only a legally wedded wife, whether divorced or not.
I may point out that the SC judgements recognizing the right of a woman in live in relationship for maintenance are UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005. They do not apply to cases under Section 125 of CrPc. This is because under Section 2(f) of the DV Act domestic relationship is defined to mean a relationship between two persons who lived or have at any point of time lived together in a shared house ------ through relationship in the nature of marriage.
Hope the above clears the the confusion.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 01 November 2016
Dear Sh. M V Gupta,
Please find the following article publishing gist of SC judgment
SC lays down conditions for women seeking maintenance in live-in relationships
PTI | Oct 21, 2010, 01.58 PM IST
NEW DELHI: A woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfils certain parameters, the Supreme Court held today while observing that merely spending weekends together or a one night stand 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 woman, even if not married, has to fulfil 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 including being unmarried
(4) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
"In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act). To get such benefits 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," the court said.
"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.
The apex court passed the judgement while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to D 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.
Interpreting section 125 of CrPC relating to maintenance, the apex court said besides a legally-wedded wife, dependent parents and children alone are entitled to maintenance from a man.
But the Domestic Violence Act expanded the scope of maintenance by using the expression 'domestic relationship' which includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship 'in the nature of marriage'.
"Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct discussion of this court on the interpretation of this expression, we think it necessary to interpret because a large number of cases will be coming up before the court in our country on this point and hence an authoritative decision is required," the bench said.
According to the apex court, the legislation was enacted in view of the new social phenomenon in the country in the form of live-in relationship.
"In feudal society, sexual relationship between man and woman outside marriage was totally taboo and regarded with disgust and horror as depicted in Leo Tolstoy's novel 'Anna Karenina', Gustave Flaubert's novel 'Madame Bobary' and the novels of the great Bengali writer Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay.
"However, Indian society is changing and this change has been reflected and recognised by Parliament by enacting the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005," the bench said.
The apex court discussed at length the various US courts' rulings on grant of maintenance under the doctrine of 'Palimony'(pals) under which divergent rulings were passed vis-a-vis maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship.
The bench recalled the California superior court's ruling in Marvin versus Marvin (1976) case wherein maintenance was awarded to the woman in live-in relationship.
The case related to the famous film actor Lee Marvin with whom a lady Michelle lived for many years without marrying him and was then deserted following which she claimed palimony.
In the present case, the apex court said that since the two lower courts had been given an opportunity to Velusamy's first wife Laxmi to be heard, the directions passed by it was erroneous hence it remanded the matter back to the matrimonial court to examine whether Laxmi was the legally wedded wife of Velusamy."
With warm regards
rajeev sharma
(Expert) 01 November 2016
respected Experts
Since marriage and divorce is not my subject hence i was following this discussion keenly. The parley made between Dr. Vashishtha and shri Gupta has made this discussion really deep and cerebral. I admire both the experts.
The judgement delivered by J. Katju & quoted by Dr. Vashitha makes it clear that it was delivered in a matter while the Apex court was dealing with the matter of DV Act and was not defining the term "wife" as used in Sec 125 IPC. To accquire the status of wife a woman has to be a legally wedded wife of her husband. Whether woman is a legally weeded wife may be determined keeping in view of the personal law applicable to the couple. In every religion marriage is a religious function and no religion in the world grant sanction to a man living with a women without marriage. Thus a man and a women living together without marriage may be any thing but not wife and husband . SEC 125 gives right of claiming maintenance to a wife not to a woman living in any relationship with a man
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 01 November 2016
Indeed it is a good discussion.
It is enriching.
The very purpose of such forums and having seniors of such caliber is served with such enriching discussions.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 01 November 2016
Despite the fact that I had modified my previous reply of this query on the advise of a senior expert and deleted citations that I had mentioned reminding me of the rules of this platform. I would submit my apologies to Sh. P S Dhingra since respected expert Sh. M V Gupta prompted me too much to cite one of the judgments, which I could not resist.
Guest
(Expert) 01 November 2016
Never mind. But purpose could have been served through PM also between both of you.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 02 November 2016
I had to give my comments/clarification aforesaid as the broad observation made by Dr. Vasishta disagreeing with me gave an impression that even a woman in live in relation can get maintenance under Section 125 of CrPc. I appreciate the observations of Shri Rajiv sharma which further elaborate the clarification given by me. As regards Shri Dhingra's observation that the purpose could have been served through PM, I submit that it could not have served the purpose because the querist and others who are following this thread would be left with the impression that what I have stated namely that a woman in live in relationship cannot get the relief of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPc is not correct and that SC judgements are to the contrary.
Guest
(Expert) 02 November 2016
Dear Shri MV Gupta,
Are you sure that the querist has a real problem, not merely an academic question, for which he wanted 100% spoon feeding to solve his riddle.
In fact, in a bid to prove oneself as right, we are providing a guarantee to the law students that they need not study their course material and come out as a raw lawyer after getting degree by outside help only, but not to make their own analysis of the law and the judgments.
If you see his activities on his profile page, you can easily find that the author has not put any real problem before the experts, but ONLY and ONLY academic queries. For example, some of his questions are as follows:
1. Whether a lady residing as live in relationship is entitled to maintance u/s 125 cr.pc
2. Whether the complainant can demand maintenance/interim maintenance in domestic violence case.
3. Whether the law officer of the govt department can defend the case in state information commission
4. What is the procedure of adoption of a child after oral adoption about 22 years ago
5. Mutual talaq under muslim law
How to proceed execution petiton when stay obtained by different person
6. Whether presence of respondent/accused not necessary in domestiv violence case and matrimonial case
7. Problem in filing execution petition due to name difference
8. Whether for the execution of interim maintenance order of honourable court filing of execution petit
9. Whether advocate can add a witness without filing an application for adding
Distance course in islamic law
10. How to restore execution petition closed by order of sine die
11. Statement of relative who produced the accused before the police is necessary or not?
12. Acquittal judgement u/s 224 ipc
Time limit for challanging the will
Validty of wi;;
13. Quashing of fir by joint petition u/s 498a
14. Quashing of fir u/s 406 &498 cr.pc after agreement in mediation centre.
SO, BY DOING SO, WE ARE MERELY WASTING OUR EFFORTS, TIME, ENERGGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN IMPARTING TUTORIALS TO THE LETHARGIC CLASS OF STUDENTS, WHO DO NOT CARE FOR GOING THROUGH THEIR COURSE MATERIALS TO SOLVE THEIR ACADEMIC QUERIES, INSTEAD OF SOLVING PROBLEMS OF SOME REALLY NEEDING PERSON IN PROBLEM.
I have expressed my opinion, rest depends upon the wisdom of the experts, who prefer to reply to the academic queries, instead of advising the students to go through their course materials, law books and case laws to enable themselves to become a really capable and perfect lawyer, rather than becoming a frustrated paper degree holders and damage-agents against the interests of their clients.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 02 November 2016
Dr. J.C.Vashista,
It is agreeable that each query/thread does not require citations.
At a time query may progress/graduate or require citations.
The very purpose the threads is to address and resolve the query.
Moderation by Experts is essential ingredient.
Also the enriching discussions benefit everyone and serve the very purpose of such forums and discussions.
Hence kindly do provide citations as and when required and moderate the discussions for enrichment thru threads.
Your lifetime experience in filed of law and practice of law can leave your footprints that shall continue to benefit everyone.
Please ignore the one and any rare individual that asks you to stop contribution and enrichment.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 02 November 2016
Another thread that may be looked into is at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Winding-up-petition-620916.asp
Guest
(Expert) 02 November 2016
How the link of question of winding up of company is related to the question of lady residing as live in relation?
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 02 November 2016
Mr. M V Gupta,
Your reply by your last post is appreciable.
Asking to stop citation, remove citation, cite citation by PM to another expert for query initiated by author, participated by other experts is not in concurrence with Forum Rules and ethics.
Please ignore the one and any rare individual that asks you to stop contribution and enrichment.
"I had to give my comments/clarification aforesaid as the broad observation made by Dr. Vasishta disagreeing with me gave an impression that even a woman in live in relation can get maintenance under Section 125 of CrPc. I appreciate the observations of Shri Rajiv sharma which further elaborate the clarification given by me. As regards Shri Dhingra's observation that the purpose could have been served through PM, I submit that it could not have served the purpose because the querist and others who are following this thread would be left with the impression that what I have stated namely that a woman in live in relationship cannot get the relief of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPc is not correct and that SC judgements are to the contrary."
Guest
(Expert) 02 November 2016
Mr. Kumar Doab would definitely be welcome heartily by the students community. He may feel free to solve their academic queries and cite case laws in every thread so that at least the students community may get benefited from his advice. I wish, he must give excellent impression to the students community with his ablest guidance. I wish the best of luck for him.
However, if he has any objection to my message to any expert through PM, he may come forward openly with any objection and tell if his interest been harmed in any way by any PM to any expert.
But, he must remember, he had made maximum PMs to me on certain specific issues related to the queries by students.
Guest
(Expert) 02 November 2016
Shri MV Gupta is also free to adhere the advice of Shri Kumar Doab, as nobody can put any restriction on him or to direct him, as Mr. Kumar said, "Please ignore the one and any rare individual that asks you to stop contribution and enrichment."
However, I wish to make Mr. Kumar aware of the fact that I have not made any PM so far to Mr. MV Gupta on this particular issue or even on any other issue, which Mr. MV Gupta can very well clarify or refute my statement very openly, if he likes.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 03 November 2016
My dear Experts,
I for one believe that the utility and purpose of this forum will increase by having an impassionate discussion on the issues raised by the members, whether factual, hypothetical, academic or otherwise including providing citation of the relevant sections and judgments. People approach this forum for guidance so that they can act appropriately on the issues raised or be enlightened. I have not come across any rule made by the administrators of this forum that academic and hypothetical queries should not be entertained by the experts or citations should not be provided.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 03 November 2016
My dear Experts,
I for one believe that the utility and purpose of this forum will increase by having an impassionate discussion on the issues raised by the members, whether factual, hypothetical, academic or otherwise including providing citation of the relevant sections and judgments. People approach this forum for guidance so that they can act appropriately on the issues raised or be enlightened. I have not come across any rule made by the administrators of this forum that academic and hypothetical queries should not be entertained by the experts or citations should not be provided.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 03 November 2016
My dear Experts,
M V Gupta
(Expert) 03 November 2016
Sorry. My above reply has been repeated due to some technical problem that has arisen due to flood control of the site.
Guest
(Expert) 03 November 2016
Dear Shri MV Gupta,
Never mind for repetition of your post.
BUT for the satisfaction of Shri Kumar Doab, you have not clarified to confirm or deny his assumption about me, whether I made any PM to you asking for not to respond to any type of query, academic or otherwise.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 03 November 2016
Mr. M V Gupta,
Your reply by your last posts is also appreciable.
Kindly continue to moderate and enrich the forum.
Guest
(Expert) 03 November 2016
But on the issue relating to assumed PM to Shri MV Gupta, he is still silent on that. He may kindly clear the misunderstanding of Shri Kumar Doab for his satisfaction. Otherwise, he can assume anything any time about me, like in this case.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 04 November 2016
i CONFIRM THAT I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PM OF THE NATURE MENTIONED ABOVE EITHER FROM sHRI DHINGRA OR FROM ANY OTHEHR EXPERTS.
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2016
Hope Mr. Kumar Doab would be satisfied with the reply of Shri MV Gupta and would avoid assuming anything about anyone without any reason or rhyme.
JAVED AFZAL
(Querist) 04 November 2016
Dear Expert,
Thanks for your valuable guidence. I draw your kind attention that I am social worker. This is not academic query. But a real problem faced by a lady in her 125 maintance application she is residing with her second husband for the last 20 nears. Now she filed 125 cr.pc application.First her husband denied that she is her wife and when her counsel produced copy of ration card and voter card in secondary evidence in rebuttal then her counsel for her husband that lady had not taken divorce from her first husband that is why she is not entitled maintance from second husband this the main problem.
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2016
Mr. Javed,
Please don't try to mislead us by stating you to be a social worker. First of all, neither you tried to introduce yourself while posting your question, nor your profile states about you to be a social worker.
Secondly, even if a social worker and has tried to get acquainted about the legal implications of the case, where is the guarantee that you would not try to blackmail her husband to get get your palm greased?
Thirdly, legal problems cannot be expected to be solved through social workers. If you are a social worker, why did not you try to mediate between her and her husband to get the dispute settled amicably between them.
Fourthly, if gone the legal way, she has to rely and depend upon her own lawyer.
Guest
(Expert) 04 November 2016
Shri MV Gupta and Dr. Vashist may also like to review about their contributions. They may also like to know why I desist from making any contribution to an academic query. Most of the students pose like social workers, proprietors, accountants, engineers, manager, employee, even lawyer, etc. But their query is sufficient to reveal the fact very much, what they are.
In the present case, the lady keeping silent for the last 20 years could have been the real cause for giving proper thought, why she rose from such a long slumber of 20 years. The reason could be, either the query being an academic one, or some self acclaimed social worker can be behind the scene to take advantage of the position in his own interest for the purpose of blackmailing any one of the two.
Forum cannot be expected to be enriched in such cases, as Shri Kumar Doab, quipped, "Kindly continue to moderate and enrich the forum."
Forum can be enriched only when complete case history along with present status of the case is discussed by the querist and the views are expressed by experts on such a situation after getting confirmed about reality of the problem.
However, I do not have any objection if Shri MV Gupta prefers to share his knowledge to be misused by some undeserving person, as he said, "I for one believe that the utility and purpose of this forum will increase by having an impassionate discussion on the issues raised by the members, whether factual, hypothetical, academic or otherwise including providing citation of the relevant sections and judgments".
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 05 November 2016
The author has psoted that; "I am in the panel of district free legal aid"
Many person go to free legal aid.
If someone in free legal aid tries to defend the litigant with zeal we should support the cause.
There are many counsels that kept daily hours for free legal aid in their chambers, including LCI Experts...........e.g; Mr. H.S.Thukral from Delhi.
The very purpose of the forum LCI is to support.
Thanks to Mr. M.V.Gupta,DR. J.C.Vashista, Mr. Rajendra K Goyal, Mr. Rajeev Sharma for a thread of enriching discussion.
Guest
(Expert) 05 November 2016
Two contradictory statements of the author are available in this thread. At first he stated, "I am in the panel of district free legal aid." Thereafter he contradicted his own statement stating, "I am social worker."
Even if he is considered to be a lawyer in the panel of district free legal aid, what kind of legal aid or defence he is providing to his clients, if he seeks 100% feedback from others only through his academic queries without discussing the case history of each case?
Anyway, Mr. Kumar Doab has proved that he likes academic queries very much to be responded and for the rest seeking help in real problems, he prefers to advice to consult some very able lawyer.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 05 November 2016
At LCI we accept queries from Lawyers, social workers.....................everyone and attempt to do our best without asking to come to our offices and pay us.
You may avoid getting allured by pointers and offers for consultation by phone/email and pay, by anyone posing as wise man but a spent force or offering just an elderly advise.
Online discussions have its own limitations and are not substitute for in person consultation.
Thanks for posting a query that lead to enriching discussion.
Consult your own counsel.
If suitable to you,you may post your location/contact details in the thread or by PM and if possible shall try to make some suggestions about a very able counsel at your location that may agree to counsel you further, in person.
Guest
(Expert) 05 November 2016
Of course, you may feel free to get allured by pointers and offers for consultation by phone/email and pay, by any unspent young force, who can even falsely claim enriching of the threads, like in the following thread:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Property-distrubution-622156.asp
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 05 November 2016
I have posted sincere and correct suggestion to the querist/author in thread at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Property-distrubution-622156.asp
I have not mocked the querist/author in above mentioned thread.
I have been mocked in unlimited threads.
The querist/authors have been mocked in unlimited threads.
Guest
(Expert) 05 November 2016
Anyone can open the thread and see the samples of the enrichment of that thread as claimed by the expert.
JAVED AFZAL
(Querist) 06 November 2016
Dear Expert,
Thanks for your good guidence. The query is not a academic query the question is related to her marriage. Now the case has been decided by Hon'ble court of Nabha titled as Jaswant Kaur vs Harnek Singh u/S 125 cr.p.c in favour of the petitioner.
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2016
Was that case related to the lady supported by you? If that be I would like to go through the judgment for which you are requested to give link or paste a copy here on this page.