“If a man has a ‘keep’ he maintains financially and uses for sex and/or as a servant, it would not be a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’,” it said.
The court said a woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance only if she fulfils certain parameters and provides evidence of these. The parameters are: 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 for a significant period of time.
“Parliament has used the expression ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ and not ‘live-in relationship’. The court cannot change the language of the statute,” the SC said.
“This [judgment] is one step forward and two back,” said jurist Rajiv Dhavan. “On the one hand the court gives a liberal interpretation to common law live-in relationship… But the fact that it is purely sexual from the man’s side is irrelevant as long as the live-in relationship exists. This leaves too many options for the man, including, paradoxically, that he was giving vent only to his lust. It creates a loophole in an otherwise liberal judgment.”
The SC order came on a petition filed by D Velusamy against a Tamil Nadu High Court order upholding a trial court decision asking him to pay maintenance to D Patchiammal.
But the SC set aside both orders, saying the courts ignored Velusamy’s contention of being already married, although he admitted to living with Patchiammal.
No comments:
Post a Comment