Why the father has to give 50000/- rupees? Is there any relationship? (Check your father is with his clean hands) If he continues this illegal relationship, sometimes he may be threatened for rape. Your father can file criminal offences just like Extortion, defamation etc.
Ø That lady is the deciding factor -Main factor(and now fear facor) your father
She is treated as CONCUBINE; she can’t file any criminal case. But as mentioned if your father have any relationship she can file a complaint such as rape etc.
And just read the parameters given by ambikaji. And if she is not living together then she can’t claim maintenance.
And just read these judgments posted by me; after reading this you and your advocate get an idea what should do in this matter.
In Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2005 SC 1809, this Court held that however desirable it may be to take note of the plight of an unfortunate woman, who unwittingly enters into wedlock with a married man, there is no scope to include a woman not lawfully married within the expression of `wife'.
Domestic Violence act,2005
"aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or
has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent
and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of
domestic violence by the respondent"
"domestic relationship" 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"
"shared household" means a household where the
person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a
domestic relationship either singly or along with the
respondent and includes such a household whether
owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person
and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of
them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or
the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right,
title, interest or equity and includes such a household
which may belong to the joint family of which the
respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the
respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or
interest in the shared household."
Having noted the relevant provisions in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, we may point out that the expression `domestic relationship' includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship `in the nature of marriage'. The question, therefore,arises as to what is the meaning of the expression `a relationship in the nature of marriage'. Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of this expression we think it necessary to interpret it because a large number of cases will be coming up before the Courts in our country on this point,and hence an authoritative decision is required.
It seems to us that in the aforesaid Act of 2005 Parliament has taken notice of a new social phenomenon which has emerged in our country known as live-in relationship. This new relationship is still rare in our country, and is sometimes found in big urban cities in India, but it is very common in North America and Europe.
In Taylor vs. Fields (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186 the facts were that the plaintiff Taylor had a relationship with a married man Leo. After Leo died Taylor sued his widow alleging breach of an implied agreement to take care of Taylor financially and she claimed maintenance from the estate of Leo.The Court of Appeals in California held that the relationship alleged by Taylor was nothing more than that of a married man and his mistress. It was held that the alleged contract rested on meretricious consideration and hence was invalid and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals relied on the fact that Taylor did not live together with Leo but only occasionally spent weekends with him. There was no sign of a stable and significant cohabitation between the two.
Relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although notbeing formally married :-
(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.
To get such benefit under Dv act the above conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied. However, Indian society is changing, and this change has been reflected and recognized by Parliament by enacting The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
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, 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'.
Generally, Judge sees on the question whether the appellant and respondent had lived together for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage
Now, tell me what‘s your father intention? Does she send any notice to your father? Just ask and post in this thread.