Failure of live-in relations a major reason for increase in rape cases, claims Delhi High Court

Failure of live-in relations a major reason for increase in rape cases, claims Delhi High Court

Thursday, 19 June 2014 - 5:07pm IST | Agency: PTI

Failure of live-in relationship or young adults acting immaturely by getting into commitments that end up in break-ups are among major reasons for increase in rape cases, the Delhi High Court has observed. The court also cautioned parents of young couples to behave with "more sensitivity" while dealing with such issues.

A bench of justices Kailash Gambhir and Sunita Gupta made the observation while upholding the life term awarded to four members of a Delhi-based girl's family, including her father, for killing her lover as they did not approve of their relationship.

Anguished over the killing of the 24-year-old youth, the bench said young adults, especially girls, need to be more responsible and act maturely when taking important decisions like getting married or entering into a live-in relationship. "The need of the hour is that boys and more importantly girls have to be very careful and cautious before taking such an important decision concerning their lives before entering into the most sanctimonious relationship of marriage or even to have live-in relationship.  "One of the major reasons contributing to increase in the rape cases is failure of live-in relationship or any immature decision on the part of such young adults which more often end up in a broken relationship but sometimes after indulging into physical relationship," it said.

However, this placed an implied onus on the shoulders of the persons involved in such relationships to act responsibly and maturely, it said.

Parents are "expected to behave with more sensitivity and maturity as such issues need to be resolved with patience, understanding and tolerance and instead of indifference or with a bent of mind of alienating the two", the court said. "It is often noticed that any impetuous act to smother such relationships often has a backlash in the form of resentful feelings or even rebellious actions.

"Therefore, it is with great sensitivity that the parents need to acknowledge the growing independence of their children and rationally and dispassionately deal with these emotive issues giving due respect to their feelings," the bench added.

24-year-old Kuldeep was stabbed to death on the evening of October 14, 2006, by his lover's father, Ravi Kumar and her three uncles Karamvir, Raj Kumar and Sanjay at Uttam Nagar in west Delhi.

According to the prosecution, the four had acted with the common intention of eliminating Kuldeep as they believed he had damaged their reputation because of his affair with Ravi's daughter. The court also agreed with this view that the four acted with the common intention of killing Kuldeep, as Karamvir and Raj had immobolised the victim by holding his arms and legs and Sanjay stopped anyone from coming to the aid of the youth while Ravi stabbed him seven times with a knife. The trial court on June 6, 2011, had awarded life term to all the four after holding them guilty of murder.

While upholding the trial court decision, the high court also said, "Kuldeep perhaps would not have met such a tragic end and these accused persons perhaps would not have suffered severity of punishment of life imprisonment had they acted in a sensible and mature manner with due patience, tolerance and understanding to resolve the things instead of taking the law in their own hands."

Source-http://www.dnaindia.com/delhi/report-failure-of-live-in-relations-a-major-reason-for-increase-in-rape-cases-claims-delhi-high-court-1996651

Supreme Court asks Government to amend law to protect women and children in live-in relationships. Legalising and Promoting Adultery ??

Supreme Court asks Government to amend law to protect women and children in live-in relationships.

Legalising and Promoting Adultery ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Y_w82Zkq4

CLICK BELOW LINK FOR FULL TEXT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 
http://bit.ly/Ja7Raq

SC rejects feminist organisation’s plea for quashing "keep" remarks

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition by a women's group seeking withdrawal of the controversial phrase "keep" used by it in a judgement in which it held that a "one night stand" with a man would not entitle a woman to maintenance.

A bench of justices Markandeya Katju and T S Thakur rejected Mahila Dakshat Samiti's petition on the ground that it had no locus standi(legal right) to question the judgement since it was not a party to the matrimonal dispute in which the judgement was passed.

In the judgement delivered on October 21 last year, the apex court had held "if a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and or as a servant, it would not in our opinion be a relationship in the nature of marriage."

The country's lone woman Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising and Vinay Bhardwaj, Vice President of the Samiti, expressed dissappointment at the apex court's refusal to withdraw the "derogatory remark."

The bench in a terse order today said "application for permission to file a review petition is rejected. This review petition has been filed on behalf of Mahila Dakshat Samiti seeking review of this court's order dated 21st October, 2010 whereby the appeals were allowed.

"Mahila Dakshat Samiti was not a party before this court or before the High Court or trial court. Having carefully gone through the review petition and connected papers, we see no reason to grant permission to Mahila Dakshat Samiti to file this review petition.
Hence, the application for permission to file review petition is rejected." The apex court in the judgement had ruled that a woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfils certain parameters and said merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship.

It formulated the following parameters for a woman in live-in relationship to seek maintenance.
(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.
"In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act). To get such benefits, the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied and this has to be proved by evidence," the court had said.

The apex court had passed the judgement while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to D Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the appellant D Velusamy.
Velusamy had challenged the two courts' order on the ground that he was already married to one Laxmi and Patchiammal was not married to him though he lived with her for some time. Jaising said "the judges have chosen the easy option instead of confronting the issue as would be expected from judges from the Supreme Court."

She said the Samiti was an organisation with an illustrious track record of having worked in the interest of women for the last several decades including formulation of the dowry prohibition act and hence its credibility could never be doubted.
"The issues raised in the review peition do not relate to the parties to the case alone but to women as a class. The issues are use of gender bias language in judgements of the Supreme Court of India.

"It is expected gender-neuter language. The objection was to the word 'keep' and expression used only in relation to women in a highly derogatory context," she said adding the apex court had missed a "historic opportunity to correct a wrong."
Bhardwaj said she was deeply disturbed by the judgement as the apex court since the 1980s had played very progressive roles on women issues.

"As the time goes, the Supreme Court should have taken up positive and progressive views in view of the magnitude of the problems of women. Instead, it has chosen to dismiss the petition," she said.

PTI

http://www.zeenews.com/news693718.html#ixzz1GnM9hINR

Plea to recall ruling where woman was described as ‘keep' - look who's talking of Gender Neutrality

Plea to recall ruling where woman was described as ‘keep' - look  who's talking of Gender Neutrality

Contending that the use of the expression ‘keep' in a recent judgment to describe a woman was highly derogatory and a discrimination against women on grounds of marital status, Mahila Dakshta Samiti, a women's organisation has moved the Supreme Court for its recall.

On October 21, a Bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra in a judgment had said, “not all live-in relationship will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. If a man has a “keep,” whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a “relationship in the nature of marriage. Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship.”

Offended by the expressions used, the very next day, Additional Solicitor-General Indira Jaising voiced her protest before Justice Katju, who wrote the judgment, and indicated that women's organisations would be filing review petitions for recall of the ruling.

In its review petition, Mahila Dakshta Samiti said, “the expression such as ‘keep' which specifically refer to woman is based on social and cultural prejudices which need to be eliminated in order to prevent discrimination against woman. The expression would perpetuate social and cultural prejudices and is based on the idea of stereotyping woman.

It submitted that “Article 2(f) of the Convention for Elimination of Discrimination against Women calls for change in the traditional roles of men and women in bringing about gender equity. Article 2(F) provides that States should take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices, which constitute discrimination against women.”

It said, “in law only chattel can be “kept” and not human beings. Slaves could be “kept” as they are considered chattels in law and owned by the master. Hence the word ‘keep' is inappropriate in a constitutional regime such as ours which guarantees fundamental rights and the dignity of woman. The use of the expression ‘keep' violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as it is not gender neutral and applies only to women. Further the expression ‘servants' is derogatory of the dignity of labour and they are now known as domestic help.”

The petitioner said, “while deciding the nature of the relationship, which meets the requirement of a relationship in the nature of marriage, the Supreme Court has also laid down certain relationship which do not qualify for being described as relationship in the nature of marriage.

It said the court had recorded its findings based on Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic and cannot be used for the purpose of determining the content of relationship. It was of the view that the Supreme Court was not called upon to give such observations in the facts and circumstances of the case as emerging from the judgment. The petitioner while seeking to recall the order in so far as the use of these expressions was concerned sought an oral hearing.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article918011.ece

Is Marriage is Legalised Prostitution with burden of responcibility ? Indian Women find solace in Live-in relationships but with all benefits of Marriage. P7 news channel discussion on SC judgment on Maintenance and alimony for Women in live-in relationships

Is Marriage is Legalised Prostitution with burden of responcibility ? Indian Women find solace in Live-in relationships but with all benefits of Marriage.

 

P7 news channel discussion ( 08 November 2010) on SC judgment on Maintenance and alimony for Women in live-in relationships

 

Part 1/2

 

 

 

Part 2/2

 

Full text of SC judgment under discussion is available here

http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.com/2010/10/sc-lays-down-conditions-for-women.html

Do Maintenance laws need to be relooked ? SC judgment on maintenance alimony for Live-in relationships under Domestic Violence Act

NDTV- We The People – Do Maintenance laws need to be relooked ? SC judgment on maintenance alimony for Live-in relationships under Domestic Violence Act

 

Part 1/4

 

Part 2/4

 

Part 3/4

 

Part 4/4

 

 

 

 

Also available at

Alimony and the modern woman

Do alimony laws need to be re-examined in modern India?

Live-in Relationship- Indian scenario-Legal psycho social aspect-p7 news kayda kanoon-03oct10

Live-in Relationship- Indian scenario-Legal psycho social aspect-p7 news kayda kanoon-03oct10

 

Part 1/2

 

 

 

Part 2/2

Maintenance for live-in woman: issue for larger Bench

Maintenance for live-in woman: issue for larger Bench

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench a question of law whether a man and woman living together for long, without a valid marriage, would raise a presumption of valid marriage entitling her to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC.

A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, though prima facie held the view that women in live-in relationships would be entitled to maintenance, referred the issue to Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia for determination by a larger Bench having regard to the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provided for maintenance.

The Bench framed questions including “whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. We think the larger Bench may also consider the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. This Act assigns a very broad and expansive definition to the term `domestic abuse' to include even economic abuse. Therefore, women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all reliefs given under the Act.” Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly quoted from the rulings of the House of Lords and the Privy Council to hold that cohabitation, with the required repute, as husband and wife was proof that the parties between themselves had mutually contracted the matrimonial relationship. The Bench noted that in the instant case both appellant Chanmuniya and first respondent Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha were related and lived in the same house and by a social custom were treated as husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised with ‘katha' and ‘sindur'. “Therefore, following the ratio of the decisions of the House of Lords, this court thinks there is a very strong presumption in favour of marriage.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article820299.ece

Married or no, women maintenance a must- Deserted long-term live-in partner entitled to support, says SC

Married or no, women maintenance a must - Deserted long-term live-in partner entitled to support, says apex court

OUR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

New Delhi, Sept. 25: The Supreme Court has said that any woman in a long-term live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance if deserted.

It is immaterial whether the woman was legally married to the man or not, the court said. What matters is whether she was completely dependent on him for sustenance.

“Women can’t be left vagrant. Right to life (guaranteed under the Constitution) includes the right to live with dignity. It is not possible to live with dignity when a woman has no food and leads the life of a destitute,” said Justice A.K. Ganguly, sitting with senior judge G.S. Singhvi.

Justice Singhvi added: “Someone has to take care of her if she is not able to, just to prevent vagrancy.”

“Leaving women to vagrancy threatens social stability and public order,” Justice Ganguly underlined. Women are, after all, the source of all power, he said.

The two judges were hearing the petition of a woman, Chunmuniya, who claimed that after her husband Ram Sharan died on March 7, 1992, she was “married” off to his younger brother Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, as was the practice in her caste. Among some communities in northern India, the widow of an older brother is forced to live with any surviving brother. The marriage was performed simply by doing a katha, she said.

Virendra, who was 10 years younger than Ram Sharan, deserted her in 1996. She moved an application for maintenance on March 26, 1997, but he married another woman in 1998 while it was pending.

A family court upheld Chunmuniya’s plea for maintenance. But Virendra went to the high court denying that he had been married to her. He claimed she had fraudulently inserted her name as his wife in the family register with the panchayat to get a share of the property.

The high court ruled in his favour on November 11, 2007, saying Chunmuniya had not been able to prove marriage. Invocation before a sacred fire and saptapadi were the two ceremonies essential to the validity of a marriage, it said, setting aside the family court order. Chunmuniya then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided that the issue needed consideration and appointed Altaf Ahmad and P.S. Patwalia as the amicus curiae to assist the judges in deciding the issue. Both contended that the law could be interpreted to include all such women in the definition of “wife” to enable them to get maintenance.

Ahmed said that if a woman marries under personal laws, she immediately gets several rights and obligations. Those who do not, do not get any rights. “If such dependent women are provided for, this trend (of living-in) will also be discouraged,” he contended.

The bench agreed that the status of a wife need not be a pre-requisite for getting maintenance before reserving orders in the case. A prolonged domestic relationship resembling marriage is enough to entitle a deserted woman to maintenance, it observed.

Patwalia said that living-in was a fast-catching “urban phenomenon” which the law must address. “Here, the man has no obligations or responsibilities of any kind. Let the law reach out to them,” he said.

The bench also expressed anguish over the use of such words as “illegitimate” children and “other woman” in various laws and blamed the “patriarchal” mindset of law-makers for this. “The use of the word illegitimate stigmatises these children the day they are born,” Justice Singhvi said.

At another point, the court criticised law-makers for enshrining Rs 500 as the maximum maintenance per month in a 1973 law. “Whoever fixed the amount was miserly,” the judges observed. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enshrines this as the maximum maintenance for all dependants — wife and children.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100926/jsp/nation/story_12983394.jsp

GF/concubine can't be prosecuted for cruelty: SC

Full text available @

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/09/sc-girl-friend-concubine-though-staying.html

 

GF/concubine can't be prosecuted for cruelty: SC

15 sep 2010

New Delhi: A girl friend, concubine or live-in-partner cannot be prosecuted for cruelty by an estranged wife though the husband and other family members can be made liable for the offence, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and AK Patnaik in a judgement said that under Section 498A, it is the husband and his other relatives who can be prosecuted but not the girl friend, live-in partner or concubine even if they are staying with him.

The Bench passed the judgement while upholding an appeal filed by Sunita Jha, challenging the cognizance taken by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, Jharkhand, under Section 498A IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by estranged wife Asha Rani.

Rani had filed the case not only against her husband Mukund Chandra Pandit but also against Sunita who was living with him without marrying him. Rani argued that even though Sunita was not married, yet by her conduct of staying with Pandit they were deemed to be husband and wife. The sessions court dismissed Sunita's plea for quashing of the criminal case and the Jharkhand High Court also refused to interfere with the decision.

The High Court took the view that since Sunita was living with the accused husband of the complainant, she must be deemed to have become a family member of Mukund Chandra Pandit for the purpose of Section 498A IPC. Aggrieved, Sunita appealed in the apex court. Interpreting the provision, the apex court said that under Section "498A, husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."

The apex court recalled its earlier ruling in the U Suvetha's case that neither a girl friend nor a concubine is a relative of the husband within the meaning of Section 498A IPC since they were not connected by blood or marriage to the husband.
"We agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge of the High Court committed an error in bestowing upon the Appellant the status of wife and, therefore, a member of Mukund Chandra Pandit's family.
"The doctrine of acknowledgement would not be available in the facts of this case. No doubt, there is direct allegation against the appellant of cruelty against the Respondent No.2, Asha Rani Pal, but as indicated in U Suvetha's case, the same would enable the Respondent No.2 to proceed against her husband under Section 498A I.P.C. and also against the appellant under the different provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but not under Section 498A I.P.C.," Justice Kabir, writing the judgement, said.

http://www.zeenews.com/news655315.html

Marriage between 1st cousins illegal.Live-in with cousin? Bombay high court on the fence

Marriage between 1st cousins illegal.Live-in with cousin? Bombay high court on the fence

14 sep 2010

Can first cousins marry each other? Such a union, except for some communities, is void under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955. However, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by Inderpal Walia, 37, the Bombay high court on Monday said the decision of a girl to live with her cousin would be at her discretion.

In his petition, Walia said he fell in love with his first cousin Harmandeep Kaur, 19, when he met her in Amritsar in March 2008. He had also lived with Harmandeep as “husband and wife” at her parents’ house before they got married in Mumbai on January 21, 2009. Walia says though her parents initially agreed to their marriage, Harmandeep was forcibly taken away from him in September 2009.

Walia had pleaded before the court to allow Harmandeep to live with him since he fears his wife would be married off to an NRI. “Considering the changes in the modern world, the friendship and the union of the petitioner (Walia) with Harmandeep is a necessity and it is no more a kind of foolishness,” Walia’s petition stated.

A division bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and UD Salvi, however, refused to grant permission for their live-in relationship. “The court cannot be expected to put a seal on an arrangement which is not recognised in law,” justice Khanwilkar said. The judges held that the purpose of the habeas corpus petition was served as Harmandeep had been brought before the court and she was “hale and hearty”. The judges said the girl was an adult and she could take decisions on her own.

They also agreed that this was “not an ordinary case”.
Walia’s advocate, Bhavesh Parmar, told the court that Walia was not aware Harmandeep was his first cousin when they got married before a registrar in the Mira-Bhayander court. He got to know from legal experts that their marriage was null and void under Section 5 of the HMA after Harmandeep was taken away by her family. “I have advised my client to challenge the order in the Supreme Court,” Parmar said.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_live-in-with-cousin-bombay-high-court-on-the-fence_1437597

---------

14 Sep 2010

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday rejected one Harmant Singh's plea that his "wife" Hardeep, who is also his first cousin, be allowed to live with him. The Hindu Marriage Act disallows marriage between first cousins.

 
"If the request was to be considered, it would be putting a seal of approval on a relationship which isn't permitted in law," said a division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice U D Salvi. The judges allowed Hardeep to go with her parents. "She is an adult and free to take her own decisions," said the judges, adding that Hardeep could decide her plans in consultation with her parents.

Harmant's lawyer made repeated pleas the court ask Hardeep with whom she wished to go. The judges, however, pointed out that "the law doesn't permit you and her to stay together."

Additional public prosecutor Ajay Gadkari told the court that in a habeas corpus proceeding the scope was limited to producing the person concerned before the court and that they had brought Hardeep from Amritsar.

Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act bans, among other things, marriage between a brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, or children of brother and sister or of two brothers or of two sisters. The marriage is void, unless the custom of the community permits it.

Harmant, who claimed to be a marine officer, said he had met Hardeep in Amritsar. They married at an Arya Samaj temple in Mumbai in January 2009. Nine months later, her family called her home on the pretext that her father was sick. Subsequently, he wasn't allowed to meet her. Harmant, admitted that she was his first cousin, and under the law the marriage was void.

(Names of the couple have been changed to protect their identities)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Marriage-between-1st-cousins-illegal-says-HC/articleshow/6550296.cms#ixzz0zV8IVhWs

Live-in Conundrum - Watch Tower: Walk-in and walk-out!

Live-in Conundrum - Watch Tower: Walk-in and walk-out!

India is a country, which is slowly, opening its doors for western ideas and lifestyles and one of the most crucial episodes amongst it, is the concept of live in relationship.

The Supreme Court also opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence.
"When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence," a three judge bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan observed.The court said even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology without marriage.

The apex court said there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.Due to marital disputes counter cases are filed by both the parties and these criminal cases take years to decide. Large number of cases, complaints filed under the anti-dowry law are either false or exaggerated. To avoid these complications, in metro cities more and more people are going for live in relations. In live-in relations there is no legal commitment between the parties, therefore the Supreme Court itself which has given strict directions to all the State governments of Indian States to enact laws to make the Registration of Marriage Compulsory process in a Valid Marriage irrespective of the religion of the parties. Let only the properly registered marriages recognized as legally valid marriage.

The recent decision of Delhi High Court on criminal proceedings initiated by the girlfriend / live-in partner of a London-based solicitor Alok Kumar, based on his refusal to marry her, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has ruled that, partner in a live-in relationship can walk out of it at any point of time without any legal consequence and neither of the partners can complain of infidelity if one ditches the other.
Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra said, Live-in relationship is a walk-in and walk-out relationship. There are no strings attached in this relationship, nor does this relationship create any legal bond between the parties. People who chose to have live-in relationship cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between a married man and an unmarried woman or vice versa. Kumar is understood to have been a married man with a family in London while he was in his five-year live-in relationship with his girlfriend. The girlfriend is a divorcee with a child.

While granting relief to Alok Kumar, the Court said that the FIR should be quashed to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system for personal vengeance. The girlfriend had filed the FIR with the police at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi following an altercation between her and Alok Kumar at the Departure Terminal. The FIR listed charges against Alok Kumar for outraging the girlfriends modesty, committing mischief against her and charges of rape. The girlfriend had also taken possession of Alok Kumar's passport by snatching it from him.

The Court stated, a contract of living together is renewed every day by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties without consent of the other party and one party can walk out at will at any time. This is a clear signal on the legal ramifications for those who want and those who do not want to enter into this kind of relationship of walk-in and walk-out.

But the Supreme Court got an opportunity towards the lively debate on legitimacy of the ˜live in relationship as well as legitimacy of kids given birth to out of this kind of relationship, the Top court has decided the fact that such children are not necessarily unlawful. The Supreme Court has additionally held that such kids possess a right to inherit the properties left behind by one of the partners in this kind of relationship.

If a man as well as a lady are living under the same roof and living together for quite a few years, there will be a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate, said a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan. The bench said the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubine.

Despite the judgement of the court on case to case basis it is high time, Government comes out with a legislation that brings trans perency in the live in relationship. The story of the individual cases underline the fact that live in relation is not merely a contract between two individual but new foreign element to our existing culture supported by institution of marriage. So this relation is very near informal legitimacy of husband and wife, which has its ramification to the children born out of this relation. Each legislation has its root in Indian culture and social customs, the new legislation should evaluate that aspect while incorporating new changes of the dynamic society. At this juncture this matter is open to debate and needs immediate attention of Government.

Nitin Saxena

http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnews.asp?articleID=45371

Live-in lovin

A couple of generations ago the idea of a live-in relationship was practically unheard of. Today the institution of marriage is still fundamental to the very fabric of society -- holding together families, tradition and marking one of the most important moments in people’s lives -- but increasing numbers are choosing to live together without getting married. So much so, even the law now has a view on the matter. TOI-Crest explores

It drives me absolutely mad when Joe leaves his clothes lying on the floor!" Rebecca complains of her boyfriend of one year. "He also tends to have mood swings when he's very tired," she grumbles. Joe and Rebecca, 25, have been living together for the last six months. This period has given them a chance to find out each other's foibles before they decide whether to marry and commit to each other for life. "Living together for a bit is a great chance to test the water," says Rebecca. "Joe may have a few bad habits but I now know I can live with them. At least there'll be no surprises after we're married."

The live-in dream

Increasing numbers of couples around India are opting for the benefits of a live-in relationship over marriage. In some respects, living together offers couples the perfect relationship. It allows all the benefits of marriage - without the hassle of commitment. If things turn sour, either partner can always just walk away. Couples have the chance to get to know each other without the pressures of family, the law and formality getting in the way.

Relationship consultant Rachna Kothari explains: "A live-in relationship is like a trial marriage. It gives the couple a good graph on their compatibility. It's like a dream relationship, with no strings attached. If you need to end the live-in, you just walk out. Whereas if you need to end your marriage, the divorce procedure is long and hassling." Such are the benefits of living-in that some couples do not feel the need to switch to marriage at all.

Meena Shah, 63, and Dinubhai, 73, have been together for 25 years. They find being unwed a happy alternative to marriage and see no need to tie the knot. "Rather than fight and get a divorce, I knew it was better to live together and part ways if things soured," says Meena. "If a marriage does not work, it does not work. Law can force people to live together but happiness cannot be enforced."
Trouble in paradise

Live-ins may offer freedom and equality, but there is a gloomier side to choosing a relationship out of the boundaries of law and social conformity. What if things go wrong? Will the law offer any protection to either party? If a partner in a live-in decides to walk out, could the other be left homeless? Will children born into a live-in be recognised by the law? The answers to these questions seem to be changing on a regular basis.

Bar code

Despite couples like Meena and Dinubhai, the concept of live-in relationships is still relatively new in India, and the courts are still deciding how to treat them. The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act - which acknowledges live-in relationships - was first introduced in 2005. It gives protection to the woman in case of the breakdown of a livein relationship.

Last week, the Delhi High Court ruled that there are no legal binds in a live-in relationship. Justice SN Dhingra described them as "walk in and walk out relationships" where there are "no strings attached". A few days later, the Supreme Court overruled this decision, stating that live-ins can be presumed as marriage if they are continued for a long time. With the courts interpreting differently, it can be hard for people in live-in relationships to understand what their rights are. So where do they stand at the moment? Gyanendra Misra, a practicing lawyer in Delhi High Court, explains that the law is very fluid on the issue of live-ins and there is no clarity on the issue of a child that is born out of such a relationship.

"Courts tend to take a different stand on this situation from time to time. A baby born to a couple who are not married is called a love-child. Such children are treated as illegitimate, and denied any legal rights from the father's side," says Misra, adding, that it's time for the law to give clarity on the status of these relationships. "With change in social fabric, the legislature should codify the law to remove all ambiguity, " he says. But with the different judgements coming out of various courts, Misra feels that this sort of ad-hoc approach is creating confusion and causing harm to the legal fabric rather than sorting out the issue. From a rights perspective, choosing live-in over marriage is a risky business. Should things go wrong, it is unclear whether children from the relationship will have any inheritance rights or whether either party will have any legal protection. For some, this is simply not the point.
For Murali and Jennifer, advertising professionals in Chennai, the latest court rulings won't make a blind bit of difference to their relationship of three years. "It is we who have decided to live together. We are both mature individuals and no court can come in between us on our decisions," says Jennifer. Some couples would be happier if the law kept its nose out of their relationship! "The point of living-in is to escape the legalities that have epitomised an institution like marriage," explains Nancy, who has been living with her partner Saawan for the past three years. She believes opting for a live-in relationship depends on the individual and people who go in for such a relationship are not really concerned about whether it gets legal sanction or not.

A safer alternative

Most people, however, decide not to take the risk. When weighing up the freedoms of a live-in relationship against the security of marriage, for most, tying the knot comes out on top. One such couple is Anamika and Rahul (names changed) from Kolkata. They toyed with the idea of living-in, but decided it was too risky. They have now been wed for two years. "Marriage is more secure," Anamika explains. "Also, I think people try harder to keep a relationship going when they are married instead of flippantly walking out." Clinical psychologist and psychotherapist Varkha Chulani agrees that couples will put in more effort to save a marriage than a live-in relationship. "Divorce still has many more social ramifications than the ending of a live-in, so marriage weighs couples down more. They think twice before separating and work harder at staying together."

Make your own rules

Of course, when considering something as personal as relationships, there can be no hard and fast rule. Ultimately it is impossible to generalise. As Kothari puts it: "It depends how devoted or committed the couple is, because that will determine the levels of trust and commitment. If an individual is fully into his partner, then the label of their relationship will not affect him."

Gay not happy

Some people are not at liberty to choose marriage over living-in. Although homosexuality among consenting adults cannot be treated as a crime in India, gay couples do not have the right to marry. This means their relationships do not have the protection that the law offers to heterosexual couples. "I don't know how I will be able to pick up life's threads now," broods Abhijeet Mukherjee (name changed). "My life depended on keeping house for Charles and creating recipes in my free time. Now there is just this unending feeling of emptiness." After nine years of living together at Charles' home, Charles told Abhijeet their interests were no longer alike. For Abhijeet, the option of marriage had not been available at all.

What lies ahead

Who knows what the experience of Charles and Abhijeet would be if they had been born a couple of decades later. Perhaps, in the future, couples like Charles and Abhijeet will be allowed to marry. Or, maybe the law will give the same standing to live-ins and marriage, reducing the incentive for people to wed and thus changing the very fabric of society.

However, the concept of marriage is so intrinsic to Indian society that any changes are likely to take a long time.
According to matrimonial lawyer Mrinali Deshmukh, societal views and the law evolve together. "As society has become more accepting of live-in relationships the law has changed to recognise them, and as the law acknowledges live-in relationships, so do society's attitudes start to adapt." However, attitudes vary so much around India from state to state, family to family, person to person, that Deshmukh's rule is not infallible. The law may change to accept live-in relationships, but some families never will.
Supratim and Ananya (names changed)), for example, are having a hard time convincing their parents to allow them to live together, Supreme Court acceptance or not. They have been dating for the past three years and their parents have been pressuring them to marry. "We are not very keen on marriage right now," says Supratim. "Perhaps we may ask our parents to find out more about the Supreme Court ruling so that we can start living under the same roof!"

The law on live-in relationships around the world

THE UK
No matter how long the relationship, unmarried couples do not have the same legal standing as those who are married
Both parents are financially responsible for their children regardless of whether they are married, co-habiting or separated
Partners in live-in relationships do not generally have inheritance rights over each other's property, unless they have been named in a will. This, however, can be contested.

Live-in couples are not legally obliged to support each other financially, even if they are sharing a home or raising a family together. Unlike married couples they are not entitled to receive maintenance payments from their partner, even if they have lived together for a number of years or given up their career to look after the home and children

CHINA
There is no legal procedure required in China to end a live-in relationship
Under Chinese law children born out of wedlock have equal rights to those born to parents who are married
Contracts can be made between couples in a live-in relationship

USA

Partners in a live-in relationship do not have the right to inherit each other's property, as is the case for married couples. However, property can be willed to each other

In the USA, the proportion of births outside of marriage has risen to almost 40%, according to recent federal data cited by USA Today Couples can agree to a Cohabitation Agreement, which outlines their financial responsibilities towards each other as well as remedies for a split

Some states have common-law marriage laws. These refer to legal marriage by default due to an unmarried couple's actions. These normally involve living together for more than a year and presenting themselves to the outside world as husband and wife
(Inputs from Radha Sharma and Ashleshaa Khurana in Ahmedabad, Swati Sengupta in Kolkata, Daniel P George in Chennai, Jayashree Nandi in Bangalore and Shikha Mishra in Delhi)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Live-in-lovin/articleshow/6386392.cms#ixzz0xEIb0UmX

Girls in love 'marry', seek protection

Girls in love 'marry', seek protection

NEW DELHI: Two girls — aged 22 and 21 — submitted an affidavit in the Mayur Vihar police station on Wednesday night claiming that they are living together.

Additional deputy commissioner of police (East) I B Irani said: "The girls submitted the affidavit to intimate the local police in their area of their intentions.

One of them works in a private sector office, while the other is unemployed. Though it is not necessary to file such an affidavit, the girls did so on their own accord."

Sources said the duo had come to the station to seek police protection following threats from family members. The girls, residents of Trilokpuri and Wazirabad, had reportedly met six months ago while working in the same office and had developed a romantic relationship. Earlier this month, they reportedly ‘married' and fled from their homes on August 12 to live together. The parents of one of the girls had allegedly threatened the family members of the other. They warned them of dire consequences if their daughter did not return home.

Following the threats, the couple filed the affidavit with the police, said the sources. The couple is currently living together, said the police. The couple is reportedly planning to move court to seek police protection.

Supreme Court lawyer Pinki Anand said: "Though same-sex marriage is not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, if two consenting adults decide to live together, it is not a criminal offence. If they receive reasonably serious threats, courts are sympathetic to couples seeking protection, whether they are heterosexual couples or those of the same sex."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Girls-in-love-marry-seek-protection-/articleshow/6366742.cms

Fierce Heated Discussion (Fight) -Hardcore Traditionalist vs Feminists - Custodians of Indian values- DD News 03july10

Fierce Heated Discussion (Fight) -Hardcore Traditionalist vs Feminists - Custodians of Indian values- DD News 03july10

 

part 1/5

 

 

 

part 2/5

 

 

 

part 3/5

 

 

 

part 4/5

 

 

part 5/5

 

Let us live in: Man who married first cousin moves court

Let us live in: Man who married first cousin moves court

The Bombay High Court will now decide if the right to a live-in relationship can be extended to two consenting adults and first cousins.

Inderpal Walia, a 37-year-old merchant navy officer who married his first cousin Harmandeep in 2009, has moved a writ petition of habeas corpus in the HC after his wife was forcibly taken away by her family in September 2009.

Walia’s counsel Bhavesh Parmar, while admitting, that their marriage is null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA, 1955), argues that while as cousins they may not be allowed to marry, they have the right to live together as consenting adults.

“After all,” he argues, “There has been a plethora of judgments by the Supreme Court which has allowed consenting majors to live together. We have pleaded the same in our arguments that will be submitted across the bench.”

Walia claims, despite his efforts to establish contact with his 19-year-old wife, he has not seen or heard from her since September 13 last year. The primary concern, adds Parmar, is to produce Harmandeep in court.

In his petition he has detailed the dramatic circumstances under which they met and married according to Arya Samaj rituals in Mumbai. However, he alleges, on September 13, she was whisked away by her mother and relatives pretending to orchestrate a reunion with her ailing father.

When Walia tried to stop them by pulling the chain of the Frontier Mail, in which they were travelling, he was fined. The family, with Harmandeep, disappeared after the train reached Surat.

Parmar adds, “The girl’s family has filed a divorce proceeding in the district court at Amritsar where they have admitted the marriage took place at the insistence of some relatives.

As per law, the marriage is void and there is no question of divorce. But she is a major and as per the Supreme Court judgment she can be in a live-in with my client, who is also a major.”

It may be noted that a division bench of Justice B H Marlapalle and Justice Roshan S Dalvi which heard the matter has already issued notices to the girl’s family including her father to produce Harmandeep before the court and they were supposed to do the same on August 9, but none were present in the court on Monday.

When contacted, Harmandeep’s mother did not allow us to talk to her, but said, “We could not make it because my husband is not keeping well. Our daughter was not happy with him.”

The HC will now deliberate on the matter, which could seriously challenge the way society has traditionally defined incest and intimacy between two consenting individuals.

Harmandeep and Inderpal Walia after they got married in Mumbai

Illegitimate children not entitled to ancestral property: Supreme Court

Illegitimate children not entitled to ancestral property: Supreme Court

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The Supreme Court has ruled that children born out of a live-in relationship cannot inherit ancestral property, but only the self-acquired property of their parents.

"A child born of void or voidable marriage is notentitled to claim inheritance in ancestral copercenary property but is entitled only to claim share in self-acquired properties, if any," the apex court said in an order.

A bench of justices BS Chauhan and justice Swatanter Kumar passed the order while quashing a Madras high court judgement which took the view that children born out of live-in relationships were entitled to a share in ancestral property.

In the instant case, a dispute arose whether the two children of Rengammal born on account of a live-in relationship with a bachelor Muthu Reddiar were entitled to a share in the latter's ancestral property after his death.

"In the instant case, respondents (claimants) had not pleaded at any stage that the suit land was a self-acquired property of Muthu Reddiar," the apex court said.

"It is evident from the record that Mutthu Reddiar did not partition his joint family properties and died issueless/intestate in 1974. Therefore, the question of inheritance of coparcenary property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in relationship, could not arise," it said.

Muthu's relatives had contended that Rengammal was already married to one Alagarswami Reddiar and hence the purported live-in-relationship was void and neither she nor her children can stake claim for a share in the property.

A civil court and the first appellate court both ruled in favour of Muthu's relatives on the ground that Rengammal was already married to Alagarswami and hence her illegitimate children were not entitled to any share in ancestral property.

However, the high court took the view that mere live-in relationship between two parties would lead to presumption of marriage and decided the case in favour of Rangammal.

Interpreting the Hindu Marriage Act, the apex court said that Section 16 recognised the right of a child to inherit properties of their illegitimate parents, provided it was self-acquired.

"In view of the legal fiction contained in section 16, the illegitimate children for all practical purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate.

"They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other relation on the basis of this rule, which in its operation is limited to the properties of the parents," the apex court said citing an earlier judgement in the PEK Kalliana Amma (1976) case.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_illegitimate-children-not-entitled-to-ancestral-property-supreme-court_1388181

SC snubs HC, says living in akin to marriage

SC snubs HC, says living in akin to marriage

August 17, 2010

Days after the Delhi High Court held that a partner could "walk in and walk out" of a live-in relationship, the Supreme Court has ruled to the contrary. The bench held: "The live-in-relationship if continued for such a long time, cannot be termed in as 'walk in and walk out' relationship and there is a presumption of marriage between them which the appellants failed to rebut".

The bench dismissed an appeal filed by one Madan Mohan Singh from UP who had sought to reverse the Allahabad High Court judgment permitting the authorities to include the names of four children, born out of the live-in relationship, as legal heirs to the legacy of the petitioners' father.

After perusing the records and concurrent findings by the district authorities, the bench held the petitioners' father, Chandra Deo Singh, lived with his live-in partner, Shakuntala  till his death on December 12, 1979. Their relationship, as husband and wife, had been accepted not only by the society but also by the family members.

Singh's children born out of the live-in relationship moved the authorities to include their names as legal heirs. The petitioner claimed there was nothing on record to show that Singh got married with Shakuntala in accordance with law.

"At the most she could be Singh's concubine and, therefore, the respondents have no right to inherit any share in the land," the petitioner claimed.

 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/SC-snubs-HC-says-living-in-akin-to-marriage/Article1-587751.aspx

------------------

Introducing a fresh aspect towards the lively debate on legitimacy of the ‘live in’ relationship as well as legitimacy of kids given birth to out of this kind of relationship, the Top court has decided the fact that such children are not necessarily unlawful. The Supreme Court has additionally held that such kids possess a right to inherit the properties left behind by one of the partners in this kind of relationship, reports dnaindia
“If a man as well as a lady are living under the same roof and living together for quite a few years, there will be a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate,” said a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan on Friday. The bench said the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubine.

Earlier, Delhi high court had said that the alliance is like “walk- in and walk-out without strings attached to it.’’ But the Supreme Court has held that the relationship is presumed to be marriage in the eye of law if the partners keep the bonding alive for a long time.

The judgment that may have a strong bearing on several petitions raising the dispute on legitimacy of children born out of the live-in association among others was delivered in an appeal filed by one Madan Mohan Singh, challenging the judgments of Allahabad High Court and the two land consolidation tribunals which had allowed the right on the estate left behind by one Chandra Deo Singh, to the two sons and four daughters of Chandra Deo.

Madan Mohan said he solely inherits the property left behind by Chandra Deo, but Rajni Kant, his brother Anjani Kumar and four sisters contested the claim by saying since they were born out of the decade-long live-in relationship between Chandra Deo and their mother Shakuntala, they were the inheritors of the landed property.

http://news.vakilno1.com/sc-rules-that-children-born-out-of-live-in-relationship-are-not-not-illegitimate-1357.html

--------------

citer for the above mentioned judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2004
Madan Mohan Singh & Ors.           ..Appellants
Versus
Rajni Kant & Anr.                     ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

People in live-in can't complain of infidelity: Delhi HC

People in live-in can't complain of infidelity: HC

New Delhi: A partner in a live-in relationship can walk out of it without any legal consequence and people cannot complain of infidelity of partners if one of them ditches the other, the Delhi high Court said today.
"Live-in relationship is a walk-in and walk-out relationship. There are no strings attached to this relationship nor does this relationship creates any legal bond between the parties," Justice S N Dhingra said while quashing criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her live-in partner after he refused to marry her.

"People who chose to have live-in relationship cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between a married man and unmarried woman or between married woman and unmarried man," the court said.
The court passed the order on a petition filed by a London-based lawyer, against whom a criminal complaint was filed by a lady with whom he had live-in relationship, seeking to quash proceeding against him.
The petitioner, Alok Kumar, submitted that he refused to marry the woman as his parents were against the relationship.

Granting relief to Kumar, the court said the FIR should be quashed to prevent misuse of criminal justice system for personal vengeance of a partner of live-in relationship.
"It is a contract of living together which is renewed everyday by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties without consent of the other party and one party can walk out at will at any time," the court said
"Those who do not want to enter into this kind of relationship of walk-in and walk-out, they enter into a relationship of marriage where the bond between the parties has legal implications and obligations and cannot be broken by either party at will," the court said.
PTI

http://newsmanthan.blogspot.com/2010/08/people-in-live-in-can-complain-of.html

Supreme Court to examine maintenance issue in live-in relationships

Supreme Court to examine maintenance issue in live-in relationships

Monday, Aug 2, 2010, 21:46 IST

The Supreme Court today said a woman in a live-in relationship cannot be deserted without any security and decided to examine whether she can claim maintenance from a man with whom she was in such a relationship.

A Bench of the court said the issue regarding the maintenance of a woman in live-in relationship involves a larger question of law with the changes in the society.

"Live-in relationship is growing in the society. A live-in partner cannot be deserted without any security as with the changes in the time, live-in relationship is socially accepted now," a Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said.

The court appointed senior advocates Altaf Ahmed and PS Patwalia and counsel Shibu Shankar Mishra as amicus curiae in the matter to assist the court and give their suggestions on the issue within six weeks.

The court decided to adjudicate on the issue as the man, who was asked by the High Court to provide maintenance to the live-in partner, has challenged the decision.

The man has claimed that since they were not married, he was under no obligation under law to provide maintenance.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_supreme-court-to-examine-maintenance-issue-in-live-in-relationships_1417961