Living in Relationship - Indian Law Watch

ADR

Demo

BANKING & FINANCE

Demo

CIVIL LAW

Demo

COMMERCIAL LAW

Demo

COMPANY LAW

Demo

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Living in Relationship

CONSUMER LAW

Demo

Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013

In this case, one of the petitioners was already married against her wishes. Subsequently she had a live-in relationship with the other petitioner for five years,and later eloped with intention to marry. Therefore, she and her partner sought protection since they claimed to have a right to live-in relationship. This Court, analyzing the case on the lines of the Supreme Court’s ratio in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, held that the petitioners entered into a relationship knowing fully well the marital status of each other. Since the woman’s marriage had not yet been dissolved by any competent court as on date, therefore, such a relationship could be granted any protection and would therefore not be covered under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act to fall within the expression relationship “in the nature of marriage” The High Court held that the relationship between the parties would not fall within the ambit of “relationship in the nature of marriage” and the tests laid down in Velusamy case (supra) have not been satisfied. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Courts below

Smt. Kala Devi vs Shri Mehar Singh And Ors on 9 December, 2019

In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that all living relationships will amount to relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act, of 2005, but to get such benefit, following conditions must be satisfied, which need to be proved by the evidence; (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.

Smt.Sabana @ Chand Bai & Anr vs Mohd.Talib Ali & Anr on 30 October, 2013

the Appellate Court, affirming the order passed by the trial court holding that the act of violence committed prior to coming into force of the Act cannot be made basis for initiating proceedings under the Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person, is solely based on the decision of this court in Hema @ Hemlata’s case (supra), which stands over ruled by us, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served in sending the matter back to the learned Single Judge for disposal.

Varsha Kapoor vs Uoi & Ors. on 3 June, 2010

First time by the legislation, the legislator has accepted live in the relationship by giving that female who are not formally married, but are living with a male person in a relationship, which is in the nature of marriage, also akin to wife, though not equivalent to wife. This proviso, therefore, caters for the wife or a female in a live in relationship. In their case, the definition of „respondent‟ is widened by not limiting it to „adult male person‟ only, but also including „a relative of husband or the male partner‟, as the case may be.

Vineeta Devi vs Bablu Thakur on 25 April 2011

Mr. Lala, the learned counsel, submitted that sanction has been granted by the society and the law in respect of prolonged ‘live-in’ relationship, which has been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chanmuniya versus Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another, reported in 2011 CRI. L. J. 96, wherein it was held, “10. One of the major issues which cropped up in the present case is whether or not the presumption of a marriage arises when parties live together for a long time, thus giving rise to a claim of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. In other words, the question is what is meant by ‘wife’ under Section 125of Criminal Procedure Code especially having regard to explanation under clause (b) of the Section. Therefore, women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all the reliefs given in the said Act.

D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal, 2010

The judgment contains various pre-requisites for the live in the relationship that is valid. It gives the couple to hold themselves to the society as to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. It will authorize the couple to have willingly cohabited and held themselves out to the akin to spouses for a significant period of time. The court ordered that not all relationships will amount to a relationship in the environment of marriage and get the benefit of the Domestic Violence Act. It has been clarified that, if a man keeps women as a servant and keeps her financially and uses mainly for sexual purposes, such relationship will not be considered as marriage in the court of law. So to get such benefit the conditions given by the Court need to be satisfied and has to be proved by evidence.

Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1978

It is the first case in which the Supreme Court of India recognized that live in relationship as a valid marriage. In this, the Court gives legal validity up to 50 years live in the relationship of the couple. It will be held by Justice Krishna Iyer that a strong presumption arises in favor of wedlock in which the partners had lived together for a long term as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to withdraw the relationship of its legal origin.

Alok Kumar vs State & Anr. on 9 August, 2010

This Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the rape case lodged by the complainant observed as under:
The facts of the case as narrated in two FIRs show that there was admittedly a live-in relationship between the Petitioner and the complainant for more than five years. The petitioner found that he could not go ahead with the marriage although at one point of time the parties had proposed to marry each other. The circumstances narrated preclude an automatic inference on absence of that consent of that complainant. Such conclusion would have to be preceded by a careful examination of events that transpired during the five years when the live-in relationship subsisted and during which according to the complainant she underwent an abortion as well. Prima facie it appears to this Court, on the basis of existing averments in the FIR that it would be unsafe to infer an absence of consent of the complainant; which is an essential ingredient of the offence of rape. The Court is also unable to discern parity of the facts in Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and the instant case. There the prosecutrix was between 15 years and 17 years living in a village and right from the beginning she refused to participate in the act but the accused kept on persisting and persuading her. The fact that the police took four months to register the second FIR is also a pointer to the difficulty in early inferring the offence of rape in these circumstances.”

Manoj Bajpai vs State Of Delhi on 21 May, 2015

JUDGEMENT : Even if the allegations are taken at its face value and to be correct, this is at the most a case of sexual intercourse with consent which does not constitute the offence of rape. At the most, it is a case of live in relationship inasmuch as the complainant‟s marriage was subsisting although as per her statement she was living separately from her husband.
The present FIR is filed with mala fide intentions and with ulterior motives and to wreck vengeance against the petitioner. The complainant wanted to grab the aforesaid property at Delhi of the petitioner and when the petitioner wanted to get vacated the said property, out of vengeance the complainant filed the present criminal case out of vengeance.

Somarapu Satyanarayana vs Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi & Another on 21 November, 2014

The appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage. All live-in- relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. Appellants and the respondents relationship is, therefore, not a relationship in the nature of marriage because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than in the nature of marriage and the appellants status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act. 26 Even as per the observations of the Honble apex Court made above, the relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent will not come within the purview of relationship in the nature of marriage as defined under Section 2 (f) of the DVC Act. In the absence of domestic relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent, the first respondent will not be recognized as an aggrieved person as defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act. The facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case cited supra.

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun

Indian judiciary has taken a lead to fill the gap that was created in absence of any specific statute relating to live-in relationships. It may be considered immoral in the eyes of society but it is not at all “illegal” in the eye of the law. The intention of Indian judiciary is to render justice to the partners of live-in relationships who, were earlier not protected by any statute when subjected to any abuse arising out of such relationships. Judiciary is neither expressly promoting such concept nor prohibiting such sort of relationships. It is, however, just concerned that there should not be any miscarriage of justice. Therefore, while deciding various cases, the judiciary has kept in mind various factors including both societal norms and constitutional values.

Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant

The Court held that, the live-in relationship if continued for long time, cannot be termed as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship and that there is a presumption of marriage between the parties. By this approach of the Court it can be clearly inferred that the Court is in favour of treating long-term living relationships as marriage rather than giving making it a new concept like live-in relationship.

S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal

The Supreme Court held that a living relationship comes within the ambit of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and the act of two major living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful.

Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v.Arvindbhai Rambhai PateL

The Court observed that two people who are in a live-in relationship without a formal marriage are not criminal offenders. This judgment then was made applicable to various other cases

Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan

The Bench consisting of Justice M. Katju and Justice R.B. Misra observed that, “In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without getting married, can live together if they wish to. This may be regarded as immoral by society, but it is not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality.”

Koppisetti Subbharao v. State of A.P.

The Supreme Court held that the classification “dowry” has no magical charm. It alludes to a request of cash in connection to a conjugal relationship. The court has not accepted the contention of the defendant that since he was not legally married to the complainant, Section 498?A did not make a difference to him in a stage ahead in shielding the lady from badgering for dowry in a live-in relationship.

Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Kumar Singh Kushwaha

Where High Court declared that appellant wife is not entitled to maintenance on the ground that only legally married woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. But the Supreme Court turned down the judgment delivered by the High Court and awarded maintenance to the wife (appellant) saying that provisions of Section 125 CrPC must be considered in the light of Section 26 of the Pwdva, 2005. The Supreme Court held that women in live-in relationships are equally entitled to all the claims and reliefs which are available to a legally wedded wife.

“Lata Singh v. State of U.P,

Live-in relationship between consenting adults is not considered illegal under the Indian law. In 2006, in the case of “Lata Singh v. State of U.P,” it was held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of opposite sex, though perceived as immoral, does not amount to any offence