LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

raj kumar ji (LAW STUDENT )     20 April 2011

live in relationship with female servant !!!!



नई दिल्ली. अगर कोई व्यक्ति अपनी नौकरानी के साथ लिव-इन रिलेशनशिप के तहत रहे और नौकरानी दावा करे कि यह रिश्ता वैवाहिक दंपती की तरह था तो उस व्यक्ति को गुजारा भत्ता देना पड़ेगा।

दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने 65 साल के एक व्यक्ति को उसकी घरेलू नौकरानी को हर महीने 3 हजार रुपए गुजारा भत्ता देने के आदेश दिए हैं क्योंकि वह उसके साथ पत्नी की तरह रह रही थी। हाईकोर्ट ने अपने आदेश में कहा कि महिला को तब तक गुजारा भत्ता पाने का अधिकार होगा जब तक कि यह तय नहीं हो जाता कि उस व्यक्ति के साथ उसके पत्नी की तरह संबंध नहीं थे। इससे पहले एक फैमिली कोर्ट ने महिला के दावे को स्वीकार किया था। अब हाईकोर्ट ने भी इस पर मुहर लगा दी है।

30 वर्ष की यह महिला अपने तीन नाबालिग बच्चों के साथ इस व्यक्ति के साथ तीन साल तक रही। लेकिन दिसंबर 2009 में उसने इस महिला और उसके बच्चों को बाहर निकाल दिया। इसके बाद महिला ने फैमिली कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया।

फैमिली कोर्ट के आदेश को जारी रखते हुए जस्टिस हिमा कोहली ने कहा कि अगर यह साबित हो जाता है कि आदमी और औरत पति-पत्नी की तरह रह रहे हैं तथा विवाहितों की तरह व्यवहार कर रहे हैं तो इसे एक वैध शादी माना जाएगा। गुजारा भत्ता का आदेश देने के लिए यह आधार पर्याप्त है।

पत्नी, नाबालिग बच्चों और माता-पिता को गुजारा भत्ता देने से जुड़ी सीआरपीसी की धारा 125 उस वक्त लागू होती है जब एक महिला यह दावा करती है कि किसी व्यक्ति के साथ उसके वैवाहिक संबंध हैं।


 28 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     20 April 2011

Female servant or an actress or Modeler does not make any difference. The law in its wisdom has not diferentiate regarding the status of Live In Relationship, but I wish you had posted in english.

1 Like


Why did the maid have to go in for a live in with a person of her father's age?

She does not say that the man exploited her.She said she lived with him as a wife.

She had kids also.What example has she set before tham?

This man also is the culprit,ie,living with someone who's good enough to be called his daughter.

What has happened to Indian Society?Yuck!!

BTW,he must be already paying her 3,000/- monthly for household work.



1 Like

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     20 April 2011

Dear Meenal. age has nothing to do in Love. Is there any age limitation to fall in Love?

1 Like


I am a new member of this forum joined to day i.e.20-04-2011

I post here below  the translation of the message from Hindi to English.  Since it is done through a

service from internet,  some links may be missing here and there which are to be corrected/added.




Hindi to English translation

New Delhi. If a person with his maid Live - are under the relationship and the maid does claim that the marital relationship was like couple, the person will pay alimony.

The Delhi High Court, 65 a person each month to his domestic maid 3 Rs are ordered to pay alimony because she was staying with her as wife. High Court in its order that would be entitled to alimony to the woman as long as it is not fixed with the person concerned did not like his wife. Before a family court had accepted the woman's claims. Now High Court also has the stamp.

This woman of 30 with her three minor children was three years with this person. But in December 2009 he gave the woman and her children out. After the woman approached the family court.

Continuing Family Court Justice Hiama Kohli said that if it is proven that man and woman, husband - wife are living like and are treated like Aviwahitoan it would be considered a valid marriage. Maintenance is sufficient basis for ordering.

Wife, minor children and parent to pay maintenance associated with Section 125 of CrPC applies at the time a woman claims that her marital relationship with a person.

var ctr, h;tld='.com';sug_lab='';sug_thk='';sug_exp='';dhead='';dmore='';isurl='';show_roman='';hide_roman='';url_hyperlink_tooltip='View translated webpage';related_phrases_title='';detect_language='Detect language';source_language_detected='%1$s - detected';soft_sell_mode='none';TRANSLATED_TEXT='';window['google'] = window['google'] || {};google.translate = {_const:{}};(function(){var c = google.translate._const;c._cl = 'en';var h = (window.location.protocol == 'https:' ? 'https://' : 'https://') +'';c._pci = h + '/translate_static/img/te_ctrl.gif';c._pmi = h + '/translate_static/img/mini_google.png';c._ps = h + '/translate_static/css/translateelement.css';c._puh = '';})();ENABLE_TITLE_GENERATION='';MSG_GOOGLE_TRANSLATE='Google Translate';MSG_TRANSLATE_INTO='Translate into:';MSG_PAGE_TITLE_AUTO_SOURCE='%1$s (translate into %2$s)';MSG_PAGE_TITLE_SELECTED_SOURCE='%1$s (%2$s \x3e %3$s)';TR_ASYNC_JS_PATH='/translate/static/7eXx3R1n79A/js/desktop_module_async.js';TR_LAZY_JS_PATH='/translate/static/5vJUr93Lyek/js/desktop_module_lazy.js';ENABLE_SENTENCE_SUGG=!!'true';ENABLE_VIRTUAL_KEYBOARD=!!'true';EXPERIMENT_IDS = [];TEXT_TRANSLATION_PATH='';FILE_TRANSLATION_PATH='';TRANSLATE_ON_ENTER_ENABLED=true;MSG_SEARCH_SHORT='';CLIR_ID_IF_CLIR_ENABLED=undefined;OTF_DELAY_AFTER_KEY=300;OTF_PERIOD_CHECK=2000;OTF_DELAY_IN_TRANSLATION=300;OTF_TRANSLATE_ON_PASTE=true;OTF_SEND_REQUEST=true;OTF_SHOW_RESULT=true;DELAY_TRANSLATING_INDICATION=1500;AD_TRIGGER_TYPING_PAUSE='';AD_TRIGGER_MIN_WAIT='';ENABLE_RELATED_PHRASE='false';ENABLE_GROUP_MENU_SELECT=true;ENABLE_LANG_PAIR_UI=false;ENABLE_RECENT_LANG_UI=false;ENABLE_DRAG_N_DROP_REORDERING=true;ENABLE_FEATURE_STICKINESS=true;TTS_TEXT_SIZE_LIMIT=120;window.jstiming.load.tick('br');Init();window.jstiming.load.tick('prt');TR_ASYNC_JS_PATH&&LoadJsModule(TR_ASYNC_JS_PATH);_LoadScript('/translate_a/nc?cb=ctr._updateFeatureStickiness');


Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     20 April 2011

A take:

Great....!!!! Once again proved Indian men are free ATM machines and have to learn to die as debit man, well if u have money all females became your 'wife'........!!!!

The day is not far when tomorrow a neighborhood adult un-married girl claims that her tution tutor is husband as for no. of years she was going to his place for tution and did used to make tea (making tea is wife’s duty is it not so Court will say then).

That is the FUN element of S. 125 CrPC as per Ladyship Hema Kohli when she says and I quote her: “under S. 125 CrPC prime facie it is not needed to prove husband and wife relationship, it is matter of trial…………. “

I mean this old man out of sympathy at one time seeing 3 fatherless children might have given shelter to this women as maid and when he is in his last sunset years and probably seeing no heirs of him this women is acting smart. Well she can enjoy fruits of interim maint. and it will be interesting to see how she can prove “wife” relationship during S. 125 CrPC trial.  

It is better to gift away properties to a TRUST then believing charity begins at home !

News item for non – Hindi readers:

New Delhi, April 19 A 65-year-old man will have to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month to his domestic help as she was living with him like a wife, the Delhi High Court has ruled, upholding the order of a family court.

The 30-year-old woman used to live with the petitioner with her three minor children. She stayed with him for three years before he turned her out in December 2009, prompting her to move the family court.

High court judge Hima Kohli said: “The trial court has on a prima facie view of the matter reached the conclusion that as per settled legal principles, in proceedings under Section 125 (order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) CrPC, the standard of proof required to prove the validity of a marriage is not very stringent, and if it can be shown that the parties living as husband and wife, were being treated as married, then the same would be considered a valid marriage, sufficient to award interim maintenance to the dependants.”

“This court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity in the aforesaid finding reached by the trial court. Further, this court is inclined to agree with the trial court that the determination of the validity of a marriage can only be made in the course of the trial, after evidence has been led by both the parties.

“In this view of the matter, the submission of the petitioner that as he is not married to the respondent, he is not liable to pay any maintenance, is turned down,” Justice Kohli said in the order last week.

Mahender, who was a widower, filed a petition in the high court Feb 4 against Aarti (name changed), pleading for setting aside the December 2010 order passed by the additional principal judge, Family Courts, Rohini.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents’ petition was not maintainable and should be dismissed, as there exists no valid marriage between the petitioner and respondent.

He said the petitioner was a man of 65 years whereas the respondent was 30 years old, and it seemed improbable that a marriage would have taken place between them.

He said Aarti was a maid servant in the house of the petitioner and she was a widow who had three children from her marriage, “therefore my client allowed her to live in his house”.

He said payment of interim maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month was highly onerous as the petitioner was a poor man, with insufficient resources.

As for the contention of the counsel that the petitioner did not have sufficient monthly income to pay maintenance, the court said that could not be accepted, as the sum of Rs.3,000 per month was a paltry amount, especially in light of the fact that the petitioner has allegedly removed the respondents from his house and they had been forced to live with their relatives.

“Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not been able to place on record any document to show that the respondent is gainfully employed, the finding of the court below – that the respondent has no source of income to support herself and her children – deserves no interference by this court at this stage,” said Justice Kohli.

The principal judge, Family Courts, had granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month to the respondents from the date of the application and had directed the petitioner to clear the arrears of maintenance within a period of six months and pay the monthly maintenance amount regularly by the 10th of each month.

1 Like

hema (law officer)     20 April 2011

Even otherwise, under DV Act, she is entitled to maintenance as the relationship is in the nature of marriage.


Recall your comments last year in Shiney Ahuja's rape case, when the maid retracted her statement / allegation against the film star during the trial saying that she put false allegation.  You immediately jumped to conclusion, in most rape cases, rape accused are real victims and the prosecutrix is the real culprit, who puts false allegation to extort money from men (ATM machines, according to you).  But finally what happened? despite her retraction, he was convicted.  She is undergoing perjury trial for becoming hostile witness. The abundant evidence, despite her retarction,  proved the offence of rape. The matter is in appeal and so I do not comment about the outcome.  It may go in favour of accused or in favour of State. But what I detest is to jump to conclusions on the basis of gender and say that whatever a woman says in rape / divorce / dv / 498-A / 304-B / 125 Cr.P.C.  & other matrimonial disputes as false  and whatever man says is truth.  The truth is dependent upon facts and circumstances of each case and universal conclusion cannot be drawn.

do not draw any conclusion that the maid is extorter of money and 65 year old man is an innocent victim, till the trial concludes. 

2 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     20 April 2011

maintenance is justified only to a "genuinely harassed wife".


And also to unmarried live in female,who lived with a married man after being told by him that he's unmarried.

otherwise she also does not deserve maintenance.That too only when they had been living together for many yrs.


maintenance law was basically for helping dependents of the same family,like sister,mother,daughter,wife etc.


these are the people who actually make a family.


otherwise each opportunist will start claiming maintenance,thius increasing the burden of unnecessary cases in courts.


and genuine victims' cases,like genuinely harassed wives take too long to get solved.for they take a backseat.


if we women want justice,then we shud stop the habit of supporting each and every woman,even if her case isn't genuine.



or else,be prepared to spoil our own cases consequently,for they will always be on a waiting list


Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     20 April 2011

@ Hema

Don't give me crap by corelating Shiney's case with this maid claiming maint. case. You shall know being called 'law officer' that in Shiney's case his maid retracted from her statement later on. Why she did that ? Now another crap you will say that Shiney put pressure of money and muscle. So what you will give as crap to SC judgment of last month where for 1.5 L SC gave justice to a rape victim ! Where is women’s honor and for petty 1.5 L they are seen to change their statement that also of such henious crimes of RAPE common Law Officer you talk here as if women are only cows left in this world and rape = 1.5 L what a low down I must say !

In this case reporting she herself says she is a maid and have 3 children and stays at old man's home. At 65 years he is a widow and re-read S. 125 CrPC recent Law on subject where SC did create uproar by saying that "wife" position is matter of trial but immediately give maint. and object of intent of S. 125 CrPC is such crafted what you and I can do about it, so what bold parallel you in confused state of mind showing to me?????

I stand by my statement made in my earlier and this post. Later if this 65 yrs. old man changes his statement seeing HIS social prestige involvement then that is different matter.

BTW there are atleast hundreds of senior citizen (single or couples) who keep full time female maid with or without her children and such cases are very common if local news of Maids Bureau we read in newspaper to be read down.

I suggest you re-read Law then call yourself as Law Officer. And how come you are drawing your conclusion? Protecting women’s rights is one thing and crapping endlessly about their frivolous 'demands' is totally a bald exercise when you women have 41 Laws on your favour and did this maid say she was raped by this 65 yrs. old chap? And for me it will not be wonder if she claims so one fine day during further Appellate stage. 


Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     20 April 2011

Originally posted by :hema
Even otherwise, under DV Act, she is entitled to maintenance as the relationship is in the nature of marriage.

HEIGHT OF CRAP FROM a LAW OFFICER.  You remind me of ld. Prabhakar and nobody else here when such statements I read.

From today onwards a milk man / a ironing man / ghar mei sabji dene wala etc. males shall also be covered under BHARAT RATNA DV ACT clap clap clap law officer prime facie these people spend lots of time in Bhabhi ji ke ghar mei gossiping about all topics on earth and yes it is a 'domestic relationship' established when grapes turn sour one fine day - right, well as you say everything is matter of trial hai na

It is rightly said for metro wives in India; DV Act means Dream Violence Act you metro wife under stewerdship of such Law officers dream a lot first and then sob sob when at its receiving end.

Thank you for making my wednesday fruitful here.


hema (law officer)     20 April 2011

Once Asutosh Jaiswal said your long sittings before computer might be causing indigestion and so the words "crap" come quite often in your responses and advised you to go for long walks.

In your lengthy crap statement you could not defend your statement about shiney Ahuja.  You sit in judgemental seat and once real judgment comes from court, you are forced to swallow your own statements.  That is what happened in every issue  in DV Act - either it is making woman as respondent or using it retrospectively or inevitability of DIR before getting interim relief.  Every time court went out against your professed theories. Once logic goes away, abuses come in to satisfy one's ego. You are in such a state now.

Hope you will come out of this trauma quickly.

warm regards.

1 Like


...trouble to read..!!


any way we should not support the lady.Because she is not a minor.what she  did at her own will otherwise she won't stay there for three years.If they had a domestic relationship ,did neighbours know it?

If not why she kept silence till she was let to go out?these are very shameful acts of people both for man(65yrs old!) or the lady.These things are polluting our society.

Again if the man is innocent why he kept this widow in his home along with her minor kids (from past marriage)?...yet he has no money to pay Rs funny..!!may be he has to pay some other new maid.!!!

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     20 April 2011

what she  did at her own will otherwise she won't stay there for three years.



Sometimes maids create a huge drama,if they are asked to leave,after many yrs. of service.This is what may have happened.


these are very shameful acts of people both for man(65yrs old!) or the lady.These things are polluting our society.


Yes,this it is a shameful act,if it is true.

Any1 in a live in relation has the right to walk out.

Assumi ji says it is love b/w the 2,despite their age difference.

i doubt if it is love.if it was so,wud they not have married each other?

wud this man not have adopted these kids as his own children?


if it is love,why did he ask the maid to leave?

and why is she being "referred to " as a maid in this news?wud this man not have referred to her as his "partner"?

also nowhere the maid says she's been exploited.she was only asked to leave.and this made her rebel in this manner by going to court.

maybe she also tuk advantage of the fact that this man is alone and has no support,while she'll lose her income if she is asked to leave.worried abt her kids' future,she filed a case against him.


why do courts give so much importance to such shameless cases,instead of focussing their energies on more useful cases where there are "genuinely aggrieved victims?"


swatirswatir (learning law)     20 April 2011

this post shows that Budhape mai dimaag sathiya jaata hai , thats why even HC upheld the decision.

1 Like

Ambika (NA)     20 April 2011

 If they have lived together in the nature of marriage and if the (maid) woman is turned out after three years, she is within her right to seek legal remedies. If she is exploiting the old man, the trial would conclude so, and she would face the consequences.  But if the old man has exploited her, then she deserves  justice as much as any  wronged human being deserves it.

To me Hema's stance makes a lot of sense:

"do not draw any conclusion that the maid is extorter of money and 65 year old man is an innocent victim, till the trial concludes".

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Recent Topics

View More

Related Threads


Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query