Live-in relationships are already a controversial topic in India, sparking debate between old India and new India. The new generation seems to support this, while the old generation not only opposes it but also sees it as a very inferior or degenerate way of life. However, the law in India has an interesting take on this subject. The judiciary in India has gone a step further and added the concept of alimony in live-in relationships.
Development of Judicial Precedents relating to Live-in Relationships
The question of live-in relationships may be new in India, but foreign courts have been dealing with this subject for a long time. However, those interpretations cannot be used in the Indian context as personal laws in India govern such provisions.
One of the very famous cases in Common Law relating to live-in relationships is Louisa Adelaide Piers & Florence A.M. De Kerriguen v. Sir Henry Samuel Piers [(1849) II HLC 331], in which the House of Lords held that the law will presume in favour of marriage, and such presumption could only be rebutted by strong and satisfactory evidence.
Then, in the case Lieutenant C.W. Campbell v. John A.G. Campbell [(1867) Law Rep. 2 HL 269], also known as the Breadalbane case, the House of Lords held that cohabitation, with the required repute as husband and wife, was proof that the parties had mutually contracted the matrimonial relation between themselves. A relationship that may be adulterous at the beginning may become matrimonial by consent.
Following the precedent of English Common Law, the Supreme Court in India also supported a similar view in the case Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari [AIR 1952 SC 231].
The above interpretations are clear on the presumption of marriage; therefore, the concept of alimony should be applicable even if the marriage is not valid, as per family law. This is the exact reason the Supreme Court of India has supported alimony in live-in relationships. Sir James Fitz Stephen, a legal member of the Viceroy's Council and the man who piloted the Criminal Procedure Code, stated the view of Section 125, which is maintenance, describing the object of Section 125 of the Code (it was Section 536 in the 1872 Code) as a mode of preventing vagrancy or at least preventing its consequences.
Thus, the Supreme Court of India, in the case Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October 2010, held that where a man lived with a woman for a long time, even though they may not have undergone the legal necessities of a valid marriage, he should be made liable to pay the woman maintenance if he deserts her. The man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties and obligations. Any other interpretation would lead the woman to vagrancy and destitution, which the provision of maintenance in Section 125 is meant to prevent.
The Supreme Court, in the case D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010, went a step further and provided guidelines on the presumption of marriage following these principles. The Court held that a `relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common-law marriage. Common-law marriages require that, although not being formally married:
- 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 into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
- They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
Then, in the case Indra Sarma vs V.K.V. Sarma on 26 November 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, though it is socially unacceptable in this country. The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal. In this case, the Court considered the view of live-in relationships as they are described in society, not as a "Presumption of Marriage" in common law. This is why this judgement discussed in detail every other aspect of live-in relationships.
An interesting view in this regard was taken by America. In the case of Marvin v. Marvin [(1976) 18 Cal.3d 660], in the context of the case, a new expression of 'palimony' was coined, which is a combination of 'pal' and `alimony', by the famous divorce lawyer in the said case, Mr. Marvin Mitchelson. However, American courts have allowed the concept of enforcing contracts in marriage, which is why "Pre-Nuptial" Agreements are legal in America.
Personal Opinion
Many of my friends, when they read the news where a large amount was decided by the court to grant alimony to the wife, say that they will not be marrying. At best, they will be living in live-in relationships. Well, my friends, you cannot escape, as you will still have to pay alimony based on the above judicial interpretations. The law in India is very chappy and venomous for men, as the court has taken the view of vagrancy in marriage to grant alimony, and that is why men always have to pay.
However, there is a very rare chance that wives generally leave their husbands and ask for alimony, but there are chances nevertheless. You cannot escape paying alimony if your wife decides to leave you. I think that is very unfair, as men are the real losers here, as women only have the right to stay in a relationship, and if they don't, they are still entitled to alimony. Men may have choices, but women always have the options, and that is why men become the sore losers in divorces.
I think the court must at least decide a reasonable time for which a live-in relationship will be presumed to be a marriage, but since there isn't, we are just dependent on the definition of "reasonable time." What a time to live as a man.
No comments:
Post a Comment