LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Supriya barlapudi (B.L)     14 September 2014

Woman other than wife entitled to maintenance?

Is a woman who is not a wife but just living with an unmarked man for long period together entitled to maintenance ? 


 21 Replies


Who are you?



A student? Placing acedimic query to entice your legal quest.



An X girl friend ? Living in liv in relation and now all is over and need money from your x partner.



An erring wife? Need of husbands hard earned money as maintenance.



PS: placing 2 lines factless query doesnt suffice any requirements to get any of answers related to your said query.




Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     15 September 2014

yes, she is entitled to get maint.

also quantom depends upon the facts.

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     15 September 2014

1. Yes she is entitled to seek interim maintenance under both DV Act as well as under S. 125 CrPC.

2. Certain conditions apply; she should not be having sufficient income to support herself, the relationship with un-married man should be for long period akin to husband and wife in eyes of society they keep, few witness should come forward on your behalf to give statement, may also be required to lead consistent evidences.  


1. Yes she is entitled to seek interim maintenance under both DV act as well as under S.125 CrPC.


2. Certain conditions apply; she shoulin not be having sufficient income to support herself, the relationship with un-married man should be for long period akin to husband and wife in eyes of society they keep, few witness should come forward on your behalf to give statement, may also be required to lead consistent evidences.  









I differ with the above statement of a unmarried woman living in liv in relation is eligible for 125 crpc.





1. an unmarried woman who was or who Is in relationship with a man irrespective of number of years she is in such relationship doesnt comes under legal code of any sub sections of 125 crpc.


2. What ever judgements given by madras highcourt or supreme court on maintenance on liv In relationship is allowed due to keeping the valid perspective of couple that they are married as such relationship has produced the illegitimate child from such relationship.


3. In this particular query the querist has not put even a single fact leading to her case about her longevity and any child from such liv In relationship.


4. I know the above reply is only made to counter my initial post to the thread.


5. 125 crpc Is only entertained when the validity of marriage is not a questionable.


6. I know after my this reply the above replier will put as usual judgements where maintenance was given to the aggrieved partner but that will be not relevant to this particular query.

Becasuse--the querist has not placed an iota of facts to get any relevant and exact answers.

7. Thats why giving only answer In a blind way or generic way without knowing the facts about the query is totally controversial as well as wasteful.

8. The conditions put by you for 125 crpc is only blinder to the querist as nothing written by her on the said conditions in her query.


PS: However, an aggrieved female in livin relationship would get interim relief in dva 2005, if she goes with clean hands.



Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     15 September 2014

Yes, she is entitled for maintenance u/s 125 Cr. PC as well as 19 of POWFDV Act.




Accha Dr.saheb mr.vashista could you elaborate how could an unmarried woman living in a livin relationship with out any marriage and without and illegitimate child produced out of said relationship is eligible for maintaine under 125 crpc Provided byUNMARKED man according to the query.


Simply useless.....


Making mockery of profession without any suffice giving irrelevant answers.


Eager to understand your legal thesis 125 crpc for this particular query which is produced by you at your home and not by parliament.


PS: Totaly absurd.




stanley (Freedom)     15 September 2014

I stand by ESIS since sec 125 of CRPC does not state that a live in relation ship is included under this act The act is as below .

Central Government Act
Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
1. Subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 12, for" Chief Judicial Magistrate" (w. e. f, 18- 12- 1978 ).
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-
(a) " minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have attained his majority;
(b) " wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month' s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such
Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife' s refusal to live with him.
(4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
Under DV act even a prostitue is entitled to claim maintenance even if she sleeps for one hour with a man . But if the Man (respondent) proves in any way either through her deposits into her bank account that she is earning a source of income by what ever means and even though is she is unqualified her claim will fall apart and she will not get any maintenance . !!! 


prakash chandra jain (proprietor.)     16 September 2014

let us read section 125 cr.p.c.. it says-his wife means a woman to whom a man marry i.s. unite closely but for a very long time within the knowledge of society around  them with physical mutual relation even with out formality irrespective of castes. if such person is competent to further maintain her and  she is non earning one. she should claim maintenance and on proof,court should order it to her.-prakash jain-advocate, indore(facebook) contact no 0947984847

Biswanath Roy (Advocate)     17 September 2014

Live-in lady partner is not entitled to get benefit of maintenance u/s 125  Cr.PC for two reasons, firstly, because she is not a  married wife and as such she does not come under the perview and scope of sec.125Cr.PC and secondly,  because she shall be treated as 'Mistress'' in the eye of law and the ratio led down in the case of Madhaban vs. Munir (1955) Mad 457 shall apply.


I don't think so that a woman-in-live in relations can get maintenance under section 125 Cr.p.c. but she can get maintenance under DV Act

Wife and illegal companion ordered to share family pension

Women in live-in relationships and partners are entitled to payment of maintenance by their male partners since the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, recognises such relationships, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled.

Referring to a broad definition given to the term ‘domestic relationship’ under the Act, Justice R. Mahadevan said: “The purpose of enacting such a law [the Domestic Violence Act] would only make way for maintenance not only to a legally wedded wife but also to a second wife or concubine.”

The judge made the observation, disposing of a writ petition filed by the estranged wife of a former Chief Educational Officer (since dead) against payment of family pension to his illegal second “wife” with whom he had lived for 47 years without obtaining divorce from the petitioner.

Though the case was filed to restrain the officials concerned from disbursing the pension to the second “wife” nominated by the deceased government servant, the two women entered into a compromise midway and informed the court that they wanted to share the monthly pension equally.

Pointing out that the deceased government employee was a Hindu by faith, the judge initially wondered whether the court could give its stamp of approval for sharing of pension between his legally wedded wife and illegal companion when the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not authorise a second marriage during the subsistence of the first.

However, after referring to various forms of protection granted to women in general under the 2005 Act, the judge directed the Accountant-General’s office to disburse the pension in equal share to the petitioner as well as her husband’s companion. “And in case of death of either of them, the surviving party shall be entitled to full pension.”

Mr. Justice Mahadevan also said: “The concept of paying pension to the family members is to enable them to lead a decent life after the life time of the pensioner. Therefore… the memorandum of compromise is accepted and recorded.”

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     24 September 2014

From the discussions made by several people and in view of the provisions of law under reference, it may be concluded that an unmarried woman who was in live in relationship with her boy friend can claim maintenance if she is not able to maintain her through her sources under DVA and not under cr.p.c. 125.

Jimmy (Manager)     24 September 2014

  • In an earlier post by one "anand" Tajobsindia said that a woman in a living relationship, unless married, cannot seek maintenance. I think we should not waste our time responding to TajobsIndia numerous prolific posts, most of which are based upon quick google searches and then a pontification as if he is an expert on the subject.
  • Every Savior..., Adv. Kalaiselvan and the other advocates/participants give advice that we may not agree with but at least it is fundamentally sound and consistent. Every Savior... also writes a lot but his writings are genuine and original

Adv. Chandrasekhar (Advocate)     24 September 2014

In addition to D.V. Act, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she is entitled.  Read Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah III(2013)DMC 518 (Supreme Court).  The date of judgment is 18.10.2013.  In Pyla Mutyamma case also Supreme Court held about that validity of the marriage is not a ground to deny the maintenance. III(2013)DMC 795 (SC).  But Jharkhand H.C. refused to give maintenance other than wife in Ram Kumar Sahu's case.  Decision dated 05.04.2012 - DMC(III)2012 - 443.  As the supreme court unequivocallly held, it appears the woman other than wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.p.C.



The contrary is that Right to Maintenance in Live-in Relationship the need  to include live in female partners for the right of maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was supported by the judgment in Abhijit Bhikaseth  Auti v. State Of Maharashtra and Others. The Malimath Committee and the Law Commission of India also suggested that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time, she ought to enjoy the legal status as given to wife.


However, recently it was observed that a divorced wife is treated as a wife in the context of Section 125 of CrPC but the live in partners cannot get divorced, and hence cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 considers females who are not formally married, but are living with a male person in a relationship, which is in the nature of marriage, also akin to wife, though not equivalent to wife. Section 2(f) of the Act defines domestic relationship which means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Thus, the definition of domestic relationship includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship `in the nature of marriage.In the case of Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the nomenclature “dowry” has no magical charm. It refers to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationship. 


The Court rejected the contention of the defendant that since he was not married to the complainant, Section 498A did not apply to him in a step ahead in protecting the woman from harassment for dowry in a live in relationship.

The Supreme Court on 29th Novemeber 2013 said: “Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. Long-standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and Exhaustive.” The court as well asked Parliament to bring in proper amendments to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, or enact a suitable legislation so that women and children born out of live-in relationships are protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage.

PS: No 125 crpc is maintainable where marriage is not legally done or no assumption after long term liv in relation is considered as marriage under view of court.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Related Threads