Duration of relation, shared household and pooling of resources are some of the guidelines the Supreme Court has framed for bringing live-in relationship within the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' for protection of women under Domestic Violence (DV) Act.
A bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said though the eight guidelines are not exhaustive, these will definitely give some insight to such relationships.
Framing guidelines for determining live-in relations, the bench said that pooling of financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, socialization in public and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the other criteria to be considered for determining the nature of relations between parties.
For duration of period of relationship, the bench said section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression "at any point of time", which means a "reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation." Similarly, it said the guideline of pooling of resources and financial arrangements meant "supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor".
The bench said domestic arrangements where there is entrustment of responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up-keeping the house are indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.
The guidelines include presence of sexual relationship and children which mean, "marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.
A bench of justices KS Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said though the eight guidelines are not exhaustive, these will definitely give some insight to such relationships.
Framing guidelines for determining live-in relations, the bench said that pooling of financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, socialization in public and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the other criteria to be considered for determining the nature of relations between parties.
For duration of period of relationship, the bench said section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression "at any point of time", which means a "reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation." Similarly, it said the guideline of pooling of resources and financial arrangements meant "supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor".
The bench said domestic arrangements where there is entrustment of responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up-keeping the house are indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.
The guidelines include presence of sexual relationship and children which mean, "marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.
"Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication." The apex court passed the verdict while adjudicating dispute between a live-in couple where the woman had sought maintenance from the man after the relationship came to an end.
If married man walks out of relation, live-in partner not entitled to relief: SC
(If a married man walks out…)
NEW DELHI: Check the man's marital status before going in for a live-in partnership was the loud signal from the Supreme Court which ruled that Domestic Violence Act could not be invoked by a woman in a live-in relationship with a married man, especially if she knew his marital status.
భార్యా, సహచరి ఇద్దరికీ సమాన సమయం
ఖాండ్వా (మధ్యప్రదేశ్), డిసెంబర్ 1: భర్త సహజీవనం కారణంగా తలెత్తిన వివాదం ఓ అసాధారణ తీర్పునకు దారితీసింది. భార్యతో పదిహేను రోజులు, స్నేహితురాలితో మిగతా పదిహేనురోజులు గడపాలని లోక్ అదాలత్ ఓ వ్యక్తిని ఆదేశించింది. తన భర్త రెండేళ్లుగా తనతో కొద్ది సమయం కూడా గడపడం లేదని, అతనితో సహజీవనం చేస్తున్న మహిళకే తన సమయాన్నంతా కేటాయిస్తున్నాడని ఓ మహిళ లోక్ అదాలత్‌ను ఆశ్రయించింది. కేసు విచారించిన న్యాయమూర్తి గంగా చరణ్ దూబే ఇద్దరికీ సమానంగా సమయం కేటాయించాలని, అంటే... నెలలో పదిహేను రోజులు భార్య వద్ద, మిగతా పదిహేను రోజులు సహజీవన భాగస్వామితో గడపాలని శనివారం తీర్పు వెలువరించారు. పరస్పర అంగీకారంతో ఒకే ఇంటిలో జీవించవచ్చని సూచించారు. సదరు వ్యక్తికి ఉన్న మూడు గదుల ఇంట్లో మధ్యగదిలో అతను, చెరోగదిలో భార్య, స్నేహితురాలు విడివిడిగా ఉండవచ్చని అన్నారు.
- See more at: http://www.andhrajyothy.com/node/36045#sthash.LZ86pv5N.dpuf
Live-in relationship neither a crime nor a sin: SC
Satya Prakash, Hindustan Times New Delhi, November 28, 2013
First Published: 20:59 IST(28/11/2013) | Last Updated: 20:01 IST(1/12/2013)
A woman in an adulterous relationship cannot claim maintenance from her partner under the domestic violence act as the law protects only a live-in relationship that is "in the nature of marriage", the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench headed by justice KS Radhakrishnan said the ambit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - which for the first time recognized a man-woman relationship outside wedlock - did not cover live-in relationships in general.
It offers protection against domestic violence to a woman in a live-in relationship that is in the nature of marriage. She is also entitled to maintenance and other benefits.
The court said extending the benefit of the act to a woman who is not in a relationship in the nature of marriage would be an injustice to the man's wife and children.
However, it added: "Live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country."
"Polygamy…or a bigamous marriage…and/or maintaining an adulterous relationship… cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage," it said.
Elaborating on what should be taken into consideration to decide if a live-in relationship fell within the expression "in the nature of marriage" so as to be covered under the law, the bench listed eight parameters - duration of relationship, shared household, pooling of resources and financial arrangements, domestic arrangements, sexual relationship, children, socialization in public and intention and conduct of the parties about their relationship.
It recommended that Parliament consider a proper law to address the problems faced by a large number of women in live-in relationships that are not in the nature of marriage and, hence, not covered under the act.
The ruling came on a petition filed by a woman from Bangalore. The court rejected her claim for maintenance and independent residence from the man on the grounds that she was only a "mistress" and the relationship in question did not fall within the definition of "domestic relationship" under section 2(f) of the act.
"… If any direction is given to the respondent (man) to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to the appellant (woman), that would be at the cost of the legally-wedded wife and children of the respondent, especially when they had opposed that relationship and have a cause of action against the appellant for alienating the companionship and affection of the husband/parent…," the bench said.
Supreme Court of India clarifies live-in relationship !
The Supreme Court on 21 October Thursday said a live-in relationship for purely sexual needs cannot make the partners eligible for the benefits of a marriage.
"If a man has a keep whom he maintains financially, and uses mainly for sexual purpose and as a servant, it would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage," the court said delivering a judgement on a couple who lived together for 14 years.
A court in Tamil Nadu and the Madras High Court had ruled in favour of the woman who had demanded maintenance from the man after their relationship ended, but the male partner had challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court.
The court said whether the woman was a "mistress" or like a wife had to be ascertained first.
The SC said a woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfilled the parameters of a marriage like relationship.
The Supreme Court said: "No doubt because of this view many women who have had live-in relationship would be excluded from the benefit of the provisions the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, which talks about relationship in the nature of marriage."
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur said that in order to get maintenance, a woman, even if not married, has to fulfil the following four requirements:
(1) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
(2) They must be of legal age to marry
(3) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried
(4) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
The Supreme Court on 21 October Thursday said a live-in relationship for purely sexual needs cannot make the partners eligible for the benefits of a marriage.
"If a man has a keep whom he maintains financially, and uses mainly for sexual purpose and as a servant, it would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage," the court said delivering a judgement on a couple who lived together for 14 years.
A court in Tamil Nadu and the Madras High Court had ruled in favour of the woman who had demanded maintenance from the man after their relationship ended, but the male partner had challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court.
The court said whether the woman was a "mistress" or like a wife had to be ascertained first.
The SC said a woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfilled the parameters of a marriage like relationship.
The Supreme Court said: "No doubt because of this view many women who have had live-in relationship would be excluded from the benefit of the provisions the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, which talks about relationship in the nature of marriage."
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur said that in order to get maintenance, a woman, even if not married, has to fulfil the following four requirements:
(1) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
(2) They must be of legal age to marry
(3) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried
(4) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
