LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

SUPREME COURT SAID THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING LIVE - IN REL

Page no : 3

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     27 August 2010

Girlfriend can’t be called kin, says HC
(Times of India, Mumbai edition, 27th August,2010,  page no. 06_


Mumbai: With live-in relations being accorded sanctity by law, can a girlfriend be a relative, the Bombay high court wondered on Thursday.


   The court was hearing an application filed by a woman, Sunita, who had been named in a dowry harassment case. She had been dragged into the case filed by another woman, who claimed that Sunita was her husband’s girlfriend and had accused her of cruelty.


   A division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice U D Salvi, in an interim order, stayed the criminal charges in the case against her till further orders.


   Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code deals with cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives. The cruelty could also be for failing to meet the unlawful demands of property or valuable security. Cruelty could refer to the conduct of a husband or in-laws that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself.


   Earlier, the Supreme Court, in a landmark order, had said that a girlfriend cannot be treated as a “relative’’ in a 498 A case. The apex court had held that a concubine or a mistress cannot be charged under Section 498A. By no stretch of imagination can a girlfriend or even a concubine... be a relative. The word relative brings within its purview a status that can be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption, the Supreme Court bench had remarked.
 

PKS (HR Manager)     03 October 2010

Dear All,

 As discipline & freedom go together, we must take the changes to adapt with the embedded culture. I do beleive that live in if at all be a change must not be a legal right for multiple relationship. may be it does not effect two individual but it certainly brings turmoil in existings nature of our relationships. I am not talking of any morality but I am talking of the responsibility. A rape can also be a choice but can that be forgranted because its someones wills as on day.

No Niether we are copying the western culture, we are showing our hypocracy till we are mature enough to handle & accept this change.

Would like to post a new angle to the livein relationship, for your views. I have seen this relationship some where closely where innocently two employed adults enter this relationship (Prior to any one being married) with all intent of marraige but collapse to their parents will. What would be your suggestion in this respect.

Regards

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     09 October 2010

LIVE-IN PARTNER entitled to Maintenance : Delhi HC
(Hindustan Times, New Delhi Edition, 9th October' 2010, Page no. 01)


IF A WOMAN MISTAKENLY ASSUMES THAT SHE IS MARRIED TO HER LIVE-IN PARTNER, SHE IS ENTI- TLED TO MAINTENANCE


Even as the Supreme Court is set to deliver judgment next Thursday on whether a woman in a live-in relationship with a male partner is entitled to maintenance if the couple separate, a Delhi High Court bench on Friday ruled that if such a woman had mistakenly assumed she was married to her partner, she was indeed entitled.    According to the court order, Ritika (name changed), a resident of Patparganj in east Delhi, will get a total of R36,000 -R20,000 for herself and R16,000 as child support for her son's upkeep -every month.


Justice Sanjiv Khanna dismissed a petition by her former partner, Mukesh, challenging a lower court order directing him to pay.


In court, Mukesh denied any relationship with Ritika, while she claimed she had married him in 1987. Though unable to provide any proof of marriage to Mukesh, Ritika did submit evidence -mostly photographs -to show they had been living together for years. She claimed she left Mukesh when she discovered he was already married before they tied the knot. It was enough to convince the judge that Mukesh was liable to pay alimony.


Justice Khanna endorsed the view of the lower court that said: “The respondent has established she had a live-in relationship with the appellant. Therefore she is entitled to maintenance.


The Supreme Court has been called upon to decide on alimony for a live-in partner because there is an apparent conflict in Indian laws on the matter.
 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Recent Topics


View More

Related Threads


Loading