EXPLORING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR MAINTENANCE RIGHTS OF A WOMEN IN COHABITING RELATIONSHIP, A COMPARTIVE ANALYSIS

 

EXPLORING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR MAINTENANCE RIGHTS OF A

 WOMEN IN COHABITING RELATIONSHIP, A COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS

Written By: Pragati Tomar 

 5th Year B.A.LL.B (hons.)

 Prestige institute of Management and Research,  Gwalior

Edited By: Advocate Yash Jain

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the legal frameworks governing maintenance rights for women in live-in relationships, focusing on India and other selected countries. Live-in relationships, an evolving social phenomenon, present complex challenges in defining and ensuring the rights of partners, particularly women, in the absence of formal marital ties. In India, the legal landscape regarding maintenance rights for women in live-in relationships has undergone significant development through judicial interpretations and legislative amendments. The paper delves into landmark Indian court judgments and statutory provisions, analyzing the evolution and current state of maintenance laws applicable to live-in partners.

Furthermore, this study examines the legal approaches in other jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Philippines, and Scotland etc.… highlighting similarities and differences in recognizing and enforcing maintenance rights for partners in informal unions.

Through a synthesis of legal precedents, legislative provisions, and scholarly discourse, this paper contributes to a comprehensive understanding of maintenance rights in live-in relationships. It underscores the significance of legal protections for vulnerable partners, particularly women, in informal unions, aiming to inform policy discussions and legal reforms that promote equity and justice in intimate partnerships.

 

INTRODUCTION

Live in relationship is a concept where an unmarried couple agrees to live together in a long run just lives marriage couple does. This is a practice where men and women live together without being married to each other.

This is not a new concept, it has been followed from ancient times where men have live in relationship with other women outside his marriage, those women were known as concubines (averred stris) these women were kept for men's entertainment and relaxation. But if women do so it was against the morals according to society.

Later on, it became a taboo for all to have relationship without being married.

If we see the current scenario of India, live-in relationships become a known concept to everyone some consider it as a taboo but for some it is normal.

If we talk in respect of the laws related to living relationships, India has no laws which specifically talks about live-in relationships. We mainly have precedents to deal with any matter related to live-in relationship. In case of “LATA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P.”

“The honorable supreme court of India held that live-in relationships are permissible only to heterosexual couples who are major ( 18 years above of age). And if it is a long term relationship  that is not like one can get out of relationship there will be a presumption that their is marriage between the two”.

In case of “A.DINOHAMY V. W.L. BALAHAMY” (1928)  “The Privy Council held that if a man and women live together, and act like as they are husband and wife for a long period of time. The law will presume them as a married couple.”

Although this concept has been legalized in various foreign countries like USA, Russia, and Canada etc...

THE LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: WOMEN'S RIGHTS

As live in relationship now being practiced in India mainly in youth, the problems related it also arose at a great level specifically problems related to the women's rights in live-in relationship. Various NGO's and committees have taken actions to ensure women’s safety and rights in live-in relationship. For example The National Center of women made recommendations “The Ministry Of Women And Child Development” to consider including maintenance right of the women who is in live-in relationship in ambit of section 125 of Crpc.

The major role in this was played by the honorable courts of India.

For example the case of D.VELUSWAMY V. D.PATCHAIMMAL (2011)“the landmark judgement given by Supreme Court of India, in this case few conditions were given by the court in order to get maintenance the women have to fulfill these conditions”:

●       "The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

●       They must be of legal age to marry.

●       They must be otherwise qualified to enter a legal marriage.

●       They must be voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period."

Also in case of “ABHIJIT AUTI VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS” (2003), “The court was in favor of the principle that if men maintains women financially and have sexual relationship with her then it would be not marriage. Also the Maharashtra government accepted the Mali math committee report, law commission report in these reports it is held that if a live-in relationship continues for a long period of time the women is entitled to have the rights as wife under section 125 of cr.p.c and enjoy right as divorced wife. But not by female who was just cohabited.”

RELEVANT CASES IN LAST FEW YEARS

“CHANMUNIYA V. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH KUCHWAH AND ANOTHER” (2011) , in para 42 of the judgement it is given that

"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.

“BADSHAH V. URMILA BADSHAH AND ANR. “(2013)

In the present case the petitioner was married to a girl and had two children, however at the time of marriage he was already in a live-in relationship with the respondent but he intentionally suppressed this fact from her. Later the court gave its decision in favor of the respondent stating that “ respondent 1 is entitled to maintenance under 125 of CrPC. the petitioner cannot deny the benefit of maintenance to respondent 1 by claiming that she is not his legally wedded wife”

“RAJESH VISHWAKARMA V.  HEMA VISHWAKARMA”  (2023)

In this case court held that “ in the present case as well in Paragraph 7, the family court has considered the aspect that both the parties were living under same roof as husband and wife and have cohabited and their relationship was recognized by the public of close vicinity and, therefore, the family court has found the respondent to be entitled for grant of maintenance. The said finding so arrived at by the family court in the considered opinion of this court are just and proper and requires no interference in absence of any infirmity or perversit.

One of the latest regarding the same is from Madhya Pradesh High Court “SHAILESH BOPCHE VS ANITA BOPCHE” (2024) in this case court stated that if a man and women living together for a long period of time even if they are not legally married yet the women is entitled for maintenance.

All the above cases are proving that even though there is no specific law regarding women’s right in live-in relations yet the judiciary in different cases has protected the rights of women in live-in relationship by extending the scope of existing laws.”

Also an article published in business standard on May 8, 2024 it was related to an order passed by chhattisgarh high court where a man named Abdul Hameed Siddiqui (43) of Dantewada district said that he was in a live-in relationship with a woman from a different religion (i.e. hindu) and she gave birth to a child.

After his request for the child's custody was denied by a family court in Dantewada in December of last year, he moved to the HC, which is situated in the state's Bilaspur district, he added.

In his petition, Siddiqui stated that he lived with the woman for three years prior to getting married to her in 2021 without undergoing conversion, as required by the HC's ruling. 

And without conversion that girl is a hindu and according to hindu marriage act if the first wife is alive then second marriage will not be considered as valid marriage hence the man has no right on the child.

Also in this case the court also held that “It is very easy for the married man to walk out of the live-in relationship and in such case the courts cannot shut their eyes to the vulnerable condition of the survivor of such a distressful live-in relationship and children born out of such relationship, it added”.

FEW LAWS THAT COVER WOMEN’S RIGHT IN LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

These laws are not specifically related to women’s right in live in relationship, but judiciary has resolved many cases with the help of these laws

●       “The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”: this act deal with registration of marriage and woman’s maintenance right.

●       “Domestic Violence Act, 2005”: the act recognize live-in relationship as nature of marriage, also provides protection to women.

●       “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006”: This act provides rules for procedure for application for protection orders, residence orders, and monetary reliefs by women in live-in relationships.

●       “Indian Penal Code, 1860”: this act safeguard women from rape , bigamy, adultery, which is also applicable in case of live-in relations

 

THE LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES: WOMEN'S RIGHTS

 

Recognition of live-in relationship has been done by many countries other than India. Now India is also following the example of the countries who introduced laws for the safety and protection of the couples in live-in relationship without getting married. Few of the countries are:

France

“There are “Civil Solidarity Pacts” passed by Parliament of France in November 1999, also known as "pacte civil de solidarite". According to this pact, couples can come into a live-in relationship by signing a document before court. It is a kind of contract by which two adults can enjoy their rights as a married couple without getting married in housing and social welfare etc…. This contract can be revoked by one person giving prior notice of at least three months to the other person in writing. In France, no rights of maintenance were covered in this pact.”

Philippines  

“This area also recognizes live-in partnerships, which resulted in the creation of laws on equal co-ownership by both parties (found in Chapter 4 of "Conjugal Partnership of Gains," Article 147 of the Family Code). According to Philippine law, in the event that a man and woman who are capable of marriage choose not to marry or have their marriage dissolved, any property acquired and any wages or salaries earned by both spouses will be subject to an equal co-ownership rule, meaning that each spouse will own an equal share of the property and earnings. Because of this, the Philippines' legal system has made upkeep evident.”

 

United Kingdom (English Law)

“In U.K couples living in live-in relationship do not have the legal status and benefits as compared to married couples. They are not bound by any law. The partners don't have inheritance right over each other's property until and unless it is mentioned in the will of their partner. Remedy of pension to wives and civil partners and allowance to widowed spouse are not provided to the live-in partners. Although the right of child born by such relationship has been protected under maintenance law, which states that both parents have the burden to bringing up their children irrespective of their relationship i.e. married or not.”

Scotland

“The Family Law (Scotland) Act, 2006 has introduced the rights and duties of the couples. Section 25 (2) of the act states the essentials by which court can consider a person as co-habitant to other:

a) Time period in which they live together

b) Nature of relationship

c) Nature and extent of finance provided in the time period.

In case where relationship ends, section 28 states that a co-habitant has a right to apply for financial support on separation before the court otherwise the death of partner.  If the partner is dead, the survivor can plead the court for financial support within 6 months from his property.”

China

“In China, Couple can come into a contract by signing to come in the live-in relationship. The rights of the child born under such relation have been protected as a child born under marriage. They enjoy some benefits and rights. But the rights of maintenance to the partner are not secured by Chinese law.”

Ireland and Australia: -

“There is a special law in Ireland which recognizes live in Relationship. The name of the act is “Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010”.

The inspiration for this is towards the greatest recognition to live-in relationships as there has been demand for the right to maintenance by live-in couples who got separated.

In this law there are a certain Rights and Obligations are given to the Cohabitants couple which is not possessed like as a legal married couple or civil Partnership but at least the Irish law gives some Rights and Obligations to the Couple who are living in the live-in relationships. This law’s implications are important for a number of areas in your life- include Property Ownership, Guardianships and Custody of children, Inheritance Rights, Fostering and Adaption.

This is a redress scheme for Cohabitants couples who have been in a Cohabitating Relationship since a long term.

The family law of Australia also recognizes the "De Facto Relationship between couples.”

United States of America: -

“In the United States of America (USA), there is instability in the concept of palimony (Maintenance to Women who have a live-in Relationship)

In the famous case: -

"D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiamma" The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the trend of trying to apply or observe similarity with,

“Taylor vs. Fields” in California Supreme Court, can be applied in India as well.

In TAYLOR VS. FIELDS the plaintiff had a relationship with a married man Leo. After the death of Leo Taylor sued his widow as Leo promised her to take care of her financially and now after his death, she wants financial support and she claimed maintenance from the estate of Leo.

The Court of Appeals in California held that the relationship between Taylor and Leo was not as a marital relationship but more of man and mistress, so she is not eligible to ask for maintenance. The Court taken account on the fact that they just met occasionally, so they were not particularly in a live-in relationship.

Also in the landmark case of MARVIN VS MARVIN the first case in which decision upon palimony was given, this case was decided by California superior court. In this case a lady named Michella lived with a famous actor Lee Marvin for a long period of time without marriage, later after when Lee Marvin deserted her, she claimed for palimony.” 

 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this paper has explored the various aspects and complexities surrounding the maintenance right of women in India and in other countries. By discussing about the laws, societal aspects and majorly the different judicial interpretation, these judicial interpretations are the major source of securing women’s right in live in relationship in India. By observing all the case laws in India and in other countries one thing is very evident that women’s right in such relationships varies significantly across different jurisdiction.

The analysis concludes that the government should work to form committees, authorities to deal with such matters and also legal clarity is very much necessary to serve justice in the matter of women’s right in live in relationship.

SUGGESTIONS

In many countries laws are evolving to address the modern-day relationship, India should also take steps in that aspect. There are few suggestions to do so:

●       Specific legal framework: To safeguard both men and women’s right in live in relationship, it is necessary to have a law that deal with such matter.

●       Proof and documentation: one should keep the financial records of them while being in a live-in relationship; this will help to determine the right of maintenance at the time of dispute or breakup.

●       Consulting with legal experts: This should be the first thing one should do after a dispute or breakup from such relationship, it will help them to resolve all the legal issues within time.

●       Awareness: encouraging women to be aware in about their rights and the laws which safeguard them will resolve most of the problems.

REFERENCES

●        “A. Dinohamy v W.L. Balahamy, (1928) 1 MLJ 388”

●       “D. Veluswamy v D. Patchiammal, ­AIR 2011 SC 479”

●       “Abhijit Auti v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 Bom 304”

●       “Chanmuniya versus Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another (2011) 1 SCC, 141”

●       “(Crl.) No. 8596 of 2013”

●       “CRR-4461-2023”

●       “MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 30262 of 2023”

●       “https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/live-in-relationship-against-expectations-of-indian-tenets-chhattisgarh-hc-124050800880_1.html”

●       “Taylor vs. Fields (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186”

●       “Marvin v Marvin, (1976) 18 C3d660”

●       “www.legalserviceindia.com”