SC Live-in relationship no guarantee to alimony

A Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur have said, “An unmarried woman will not be able to claim maintenance by merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship”..A Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur have said, “An unmarried woman will not be able to claim maintenance by merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship. Not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 (The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) . To get such benefit the conditions mentioned must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and / or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage”..Here, the Appellant (Velusamy) is claiming that he was married to Lakshmi (his first wife) in the year 1980. The Respondent (Patchaiammal) is claiming that the Appellant (Velusamy) married the Respondent (Patchaiammal) in 1986 and stayed at the Respondents father’s house for 2 to 3 years thereafter. That means that the Appellant (Velusamy) deserted the Respondent (Patchaiammal) either in 1988 or 1989. In 2001, the Respondent (Patchaiammal) moved the Family Court seeking maintenance. The Supreme Court Bench said, “that it was incumbent upon the Respondent to satisfactorily explain the delay of 12 years before she moved the Court for maintenance”..The Respondent (Patchaiammal) filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to claim alimony from the Appellant (Velusamy) in 2001 in the Family Courts at Coimbatore. The Respondent (Patchaiammal) claims that the Appellant (Velusamy) after deserting her after 2 to 3 years of marriage went to his native place. The Respondent thus claims alimony of Rs. 500 as the Appellant is a School Teacher and earns Rs. 10,000 per month. The Family Court held that the Appellant (Velusamy) was married to the Respondent (Patchaiammal). These findings have been upheld by the Madras High Court in the impugned judgment..The Supreme Court stated that a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. For the purposes of claiming benefits under the domestic violence law, the claimant must satisfy four requirements i.e. (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 and (d) they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time..The Bench opined that a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act must also fulfil the above requirements and in addition the parties must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005)..The judgement states that since the Courts below erred in law in holding that Lakshmi was not married to the Appellant (since notice was not issued to Lakshmi [the first wife] and she was not heard), it cannot be said at this stage that the Respondent (Patchaiammal) herein is the wife of the Appellant (Velusamy). A divorced wife is treated as a wife for the purpose of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but if a person has not even been married, then that person could not be divorced. Hence the Respondent (Patchaiammal) herein cannot claim to be the wife of the Appellant (Velusamy) unless it is established that the Appellant (Velusamy) was not married to Lakshmi..The Appellant i.e. Velusamy was represented by Advocate T. Harish Kumar and the Respondent i.e. Patchaiammal was represented by Senior Advocate Jayanat Bhushan..The Court set aside the impugned judgement and held that the matter be decided afresh by the Family Court in accordance with the law and keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court..Also read: SC: live-in for a long period equivalent to marriage and children born out of live-in are not illegitimate and SC: live-in relationships are fine but don’t expect ancestral property..A copy of the judgment is available here.