Can women in live-in relationships get alimony?
Fastrack Legal Solutions LLP
REDEFINING LEGAL SERVICES. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED!
Introduction Can Women in Live-in relationship get alimony
In India, marriage is considered a sacred bond and relationship. Marriage has undergone tremendous evolution from Ancient India until the present. Future generations are more curious about relationships. Live-in relationships are an increasingly common notion among couples all over the world. A live-in relationship is between unmarried couples who live together to preserve a long-term relationship equivalent to marriage. The concept of a live-in relationship is a Western concept that emerged in the late twentieth century. This concept is prevalent in practically every country in the world.
This new Western notion is now jeopardizing all traditional marital concepts, not only in India but also internationally. The concept has made its way to India, but it continues to be regarded as taboo and unethical by many people. Although the legal status of live-in partnerships in India is uncertain, the Supreme Court has decided in numerous cases that any couple living together for an extended period of time is deemed to be legally married unless proven otherwise. Let’s understand from the basics what a Live-in relationship is.
What is a Live-in Relationship?
A relationship in which 2 individuals involved romantically reside together without being legally married, in this type of relationship they do not have any legal obligation towards each other unlike that of a husband and wife.
Key features-
Validity of Live-in relationship in India –
The Supreme Court first recognized the validity in the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy Director of Consolidation and Ors on 1st August 1978.[1] ?Where it was held that
” A strong presumption arises in favor of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. Law leans in favor of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.”
A significant piece of Legislation also recognized live-in relationships giving them a legal status i.e The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 According to Section 2(f) of the Act, a “domestic relationship” is defined as a relationship between two people who live or have lived together in a shared household at any time and are related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship like marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal on 28 April 2010. ?[2]Opined that a couple living together in a live-in relationship without marriage can not said to be an offense or illegal.
“While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting
, with the exception of adultery’ as defined under Section 497 IPC. At this juncture, we may refer to the decision given by this Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522,[3] wherein it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with the obvious exception of adultery’), even though it may be perceived as immoral. A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or “live with anyone she likes” ”
Legal Framework Governing Live-in Relations
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 is a landmark legislation that recognizes the need to safeguard women in Live-in relationship
It was further recognized in the case of ?D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010).[4]
In this landmark case, the court gave an extended meaning to the term “domestic Relationship”? where the court said that a live-in relationship similar to that of marriage qualifies as “A relationship in nature of marriage”. “Relationship akin to marriage”
The key components include – cohabitation, mutual dependence, and social acceptance.
Section 20: Provides monetary relief, including maintenance, to women in such relationships.
This act deals with the registration of marriage but also deals with the provisions of maintenance to be provided to the wife and children, while it explicitly does not mention Live-in relationships the case laws do include live-in relationships.
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) establishes a legal remedy for maintenance, allowing women to seek support from their male partners. While this clause was originally intended for legally married couples, court rulings have widened its interpretation to include women in live-in relationships Maintenance Rights: Allows women to seek maintenance if they can demonstrate a connection similar to marriage. Protection from Vagrancy: aims to keep women from becoming destitute or without means of subsistence.
Maintenance of women in Live-in Relationships-
Conditions for granting Maintenance-
? ?Domestic violence
In the case of Indra Sharma v. V.K.V. Sharma 2013 ?[5]when a live-in relationship would fall within the expression “relationship like marriage”, the Bench said that the fact that twin children were born out of such a relationship itself shows the intention of the woman to treat this relationship as a long term living relationship and therefore she is entitled to claim interim maintenance. The Supreme Court recognized that economic abuse and emotional neglect constitute domestic violence, qualifying the woman for monetary relief.
?Economic Dependence
This shows that the women depended on the male for any sort of money
Eg- Lack of independent income
contribution to household work without any monetary compensation
Dissertation-
The male desserts the female after cohabitation for a long period of time
Maintenance in India was only provided to the wife. A narrower definition of a wife is ‘A woman who is a lawfully wedded partner of a man’. It only contains partners who are lawfully married, as defined by their respective laws.
According to the conventional narrower view of the wife definition, only women who are legally married to their husbands have their rights protected under the Indian Constitution. However, during the last two decades, the judiciary has established a broader view of the term ‘wife’, including women who live with a man as spouses but are not legally married to each other.
The goal of broadening the definition of ‘wife’ is to protect the interests of all women in live-in relationships and to prevent partners in such partnerships from abusing the law. A live-in relationship in which a man and a woman live in the same household for an extended period of time, as if they were married, is referred to as legitimate partners, and they are subject to the same marital laws as a husband and wife.
According to the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System’s 2003 report[4], the recommendation in the new amendment is to broaden the scope of the word ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC to include a woman who has been living with a man without marriage but likes his wife for a reasonable period of time.
In the landmark case of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another[6]
The court held that
领英推荐
“We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, to fulfill the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”[7]
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enshrines the duty to give maintenance to a wife, minor children, or elderly parents in order to avoid destitution and homelessness. Instead of introducing a new concept of maintenance for a live-in partner in Section 125 CrPC, the Apex Court of India has widened the definition of ‘wife’ to include couples that are not legally married but are regarded as legitimate. In the case described below, the Supreme Court imposed specific restrictions on a live-in couple in order for them to be considered a married pair.
The Supreme Court has established precise conditions for recognizing live-in partnerships as equivalent to marriage, which can affect the right to maintenance:
Duration of Relationship: The couple should have lived together for an extended period of time, demonstrating a long-term commitment and intention to maintain a stable connection.
Shared Household: The couples must have lived together in a shared household, contributed to household expenses, and exhibiting a level of interdependence comparable to marriage.
Social Recognition: Partners should exhibit themselves as a couple to family, friends, and society in order to emphasize the legitimacy of the relationship.
Intention to Cohabit: The couple should intend to live together as a married couple, demonstrating their mutual knowledge that their union is more than a temporary arrangement.
Financial Arrangements: Shared financial responsibility, shared bank accounts, or contributions to home expenses might help to demonstrate the relationship’s nature, similar to marriage.
Children and Joint Duties: If the couple has children or cares for dependents together, it suggests a partnership with shared duties.
Exclusivity: The relationship must be exclusive, with neither party having multiple relationships with other people.
The case of Rawathi bai v. Jageshwar, 1981 [8]explained the scope of being unable to maintain? herself-
Ensures supply of – food, clothing, and shelter.
Legitimacy of children and inheritance rights of children-
The intricacy of live-in partnerships developed when it came to the rights of children born from such relationships. The debate was whether such youngsters should be granted the same privileges as genuine offspring. Historically, Indian society denied such children any social or legal standing. However, the Courts, by exercising their supreme power of jurisdiction, have made it very apparent that children born out of a relationship of parents living together for a significant period of time will be given the status of legitimate children, and as a result, those children are entitled to all of the rights that a child born out of a legally and socially recognized marital relationship enjoys.
Following that, the Supreme Court has ruled in some landmark cases that children born from live-in relationships will be considered legitimate and will be entitled to all of the rights guaranteed by general and special statutes for children born from legally and socially accepted marriages.
All of these choices have been made in accordance with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. The esteemed Judges have also read the clauses broadly to ensure that the children do not suffer as a result of their parent’s wrongdoing. The Court has ensured that these children receive social recognition and are entitled to all social rights under legal provisions.
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam?v.?Suruttayan[9]– recognized the legitimacy of children born out of a Live-in relationship. The court stated, “If a man and woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for some years, there will be a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate.”
In another case of Tulsa v. Durghatiyal [10]the court has ruled that a child born from a live-in relationship is no longer regarded illegitimate in the eyes of the law. The parents must have lived under one roof and cohabited for a sufficient period of time for society to regard the couple as husband and wife, and it can not be a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship.
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act also ensures the legitimacy of children even if the marriage of the parents is declared null and void. The child born out of it will be considered legitimate and will get his parents’ property but not the property of his ancestors. This concept was extended to the children born out of live-in relationships.
Similarly, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Court provides a legal remedy to the children to claim maintenance from their biological father no matter what the marital status of their parents is.
Under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) the Female in the Live-in Relationship can claim maintenance for herself and the children born out of that relationship.
In Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) The children can seek maintenance from their parents if they are unable to maintain themselves.
In the case of Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan (2010)[11] the supreme court stated that the children are entitled to maintenance irrespective of the nature of the nature of the relationship of the parents.
Factors considered for granting maintenance to children
Conclusion
In India, women in live-in relationships can seek maintenance if the relationship is “in the nature of marriage.” Along with various Supreme Court decisions, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) are defending regulations that protect and ensure a woman’s rights and maintenance.
The concept of a live-in relationship is a new societal trend that will take some time for most individuals to adjust to. According to me, the Indian judiciary has excellently handled the new Western notion. In the early years of the introduction of such a new notion, the Supreme Court has adjudicated on and established rules for distinguishing between a marriage-like relationship and a concubinage.
The Supreme Court has issued various decisions on the maintenance of a live-in partner and any children born as a result of such a relationship. In most cases, it was granted to the women and children involved in such a connection. However, the quantity of upkeep will always be determined by the merits of the case. Furthermore, the lack of particular legislation to address the new social transformation will fill the other half as well.
Legislation is not the sole way to make it acceptable among Indians. Education and awareness are required to make it acceptable to the 1.4 billion people. This will not be an easy undertaking. It is only a matter of time before it is no longer regarded as forbidden, as it currently is.
By Himanshi Chowdhary NLU Jabalpur Intern at Fastrack Legal Solutions
[1] Badri Prasad v. Dy Director of Consolidation and Ors (1978) 3 SCC 527
[2] S . Khushboo v. Kanniammal(2010) 5 SCC 600
[3] Lata Singh v. the State of U.P (2006) 5 SCC 475
[4] D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469
[5] Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755
[6] Chanmuniya versus Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another (2011) 1 SCC, 141
[7] Supra
[8] Rewati Bai v. Jageshwar, 1991 CriLJ 40.
[10]Tulsa v. Durghatiya AIR 2008 SC 1193