Live In – Relationship
Indra Sarma V/S V.K. Sarma
Citation Criminal Appeal (No. 2009 Of 2013)
Bench – K.S. Radha Krishnan
Pinki Chandra Ghose
Appellant and respondent works in private company the respondent was a married man with two kids. At the of 33 years appellant decided to cohabitate together in live in relationship with respondent. The respondent agreed and started living separately family for life live in relationship ,all the family member were against of respondent decision to live-in –relationship.
Both of them lived together have sexual relationship , their intimacy makes pregnant ,but due to respondent, appellant was forced to abort continuously for 3 times.
The appellant stared the business by respondent name ,the business was profitable but later respondent shifted the business to his family house to financially help the son due to this reason appellant loose the source of earning. Later respondent took the money from appellant to buy the property for 1 lakh but promise to gave the money and transfer the property in appellant name but nothing happen of 1lakh
Later respondent took 2,50,000 as a loan from the appellant to set up a beauty parlor for the respondent’s wife but ,never return back the said amount .
Appellant alleged that respondent do not allow her to add his surname or name at last never introduced her as his wife in public places and family function ,never took her anywhere or never shows interest to took her anywhere or never shows interest to joint accounts and other vital documents
Due to family opposition to cohabitate in live-in without marriage with appellant the respondent left the house of appellant without paying her for maintenance and without fulfilling basic needs of appellant.
Appellant moved to III additional chief metropolitan magistrate under section 12 of domestic violence act.
Section 18 of domestic violence act provides the protection of appellant from domestic against the women and the respondent in any case do not have the authority to alienate the property whether movable or immovable
Section 19 provides the protection for women to get compensation for women to get compensation amounting to 25000per month or must be provided with residence either jointly or singly as a share by the respondent or in section 20 the domestic violence against any women or showing negligence in medical treatment or operation must be charged with 75000 per month
However the metropolitan were found the evidence that state the proof of living in live in status , for a period of 18 years and the respondent held liable to left the appellant without any information or promise to maintain her, however under section 3 of domestic violence act the respondent liable to conduct domestic violence against women and however the magistrate established that a sum of 18000 per month has to be given as maintenance charge per month as the appellant totally depends on respondent and do not move any source of income
Respondent then took the matter to the sessions court under section 24 of domestic court implements the metropolitan courts decision because of grounds started above proved true by the appellant so, the respondent is liable to maintenance under section 3 of domestic violence act.
HIGH COURT VERDICT
Respondent through appeal to the high court referred the case of D. Velusamy V.D. At Chaiummal (2010, SCC 469);-
In this case the High Court set aside the decision of the lower court and allows the appeal where as the test was based on no marital status, so result in this case is not satisfied
Whereas the learned counsel ‘ Shri Anish Kumar Gupta submitted that in section 2 of Domestic Violence act ,if two person living and sharing household with each other without marriage, government under this act as satisfied by the test in Velusamy case (supra)
An amicus curiae Mrs Jyotika Kalra says all the women harassed on the ground of domestic violence governed under such act in the scope of article 15 (3) and article 39 is wide that protects the rights of women
The reference taken from Malimath committee report taken into consideration, as report taken into consideration as the foremost duty of the husband memories second wife .the wife is liable to get maintenance just like first wife under section 125 C.R.P.C as observed in case Deoki Panjhiyara V. Shashi Bhushan Narayan and others (2013) 2 SCC 137.
Whereas the respondent provides the brief description by referring the international live in –relationship cases UNDP principle marriage act section 5 and 7 that emphasis more on marriages and provides status of married spouse only after approval of marriage.
Article 16 UNDP follows the same principle
Article 23 of international covenant on civil and political right,1966 (ICCPR)
(1) Family is the union that is natural and must ensured all the protection by state
(2) The right to marriage after attaining the majority at any age must be provided and to form a family must be a valid right with recognition
(3) The marriage must be based on consult of the spouses
(4) The parties to the convention must approved the above statement in their states
GUIDELINESS BY HIGH COURT-
the relationship must be based on duration, not fixed, but maximum period of time the relationship must exist and there must be a emotional connection must present between the partners, the couple must share the same roof with each other for a long period of time, vary from case to case as per section 2(f) of domestic violence act.
The couple must be living together cohabitate together without being married to each other, shares household activities together as defined under section 2(s) of domestic violence act.
Couples shares the joint account together or involves in merging or pooling of the financial business together or sharing their financial air together acquired property in favor of women, involves in long term business plan must focuses on securing relationship for the long term goal.
If the women show more interest in household chaos like cocking, keeping the house cleans cleaning the utensils or washing clothes in absence of maid, then lives very similar to the married couple but not entitled with the status of married couples but termed as partners rather than spouses.
Any sexual relationship emotionally built with pure heart and love for the procreation of offspring, to enjoy the life like a married couple, the child born out from such relationship is legitimate.
If the couples are enjoying the life as married couples, socializing by interacting in public places as spouses, must given the treatment as married couples.
The parties to the live in relationship must have a common intention; however they have to carry their responsibility towards each other, as if they are married to each other.
However their guidelines were interpreted by the High Court, the Supreme Court finds no objection to interfere the decision given by the court and decided to dismiss the appeal.
Even if someone is living with a person without marriage, but lives together the child born out of such marriage and live in couple allowed to share and all remenaration born out of it. if couples without marriage lives together within 7 years of marriage, after this case, even the female couple living in live in relationship allowed to get compensation, and right to property.
PLEASE REFER MY POST- https://legalacharya.com/caseanalysis/taj-trapezium-case/