The woman in a live-in relationship and second wife is not
entitled to maintenance unless she fulfills certain parameters, the Supreme
Court in VELUSAMY Vs D PATCHAIAMMAL [2010 (10) SCC 469] had observed that merely
spending weekends together or a one night would not make it a domestic
relationship.
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur said
that in order to get maintenance, a women, even if not married, has to fulfill
the following four requirements:
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 be voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being
akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
The Supreme Court observed, in our opinion not all Live-in
relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get
the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. To get
such benefit the conditions mentioned above must be satisfied, and this has to
be proved by evidence. If a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and
uses mainly for sexual purposes and/or as a servant it would not, in our
opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.
The Apex court passed the judgment while setting aside the
concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court
awarding Rs 500 maintenance to Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the
appellant D Velusamy.
Velusamy had challenged the two Court’s 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.
The Apex court also observed, "No doubt the view we are taking would
exclude many women who have had a Live-in relationship from the benefit of the
2005 Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act), but then it is not
for this court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the
expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'Live-in
relationship'. The court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the
language of the statute," the bench observed.
Related Articles:
Prepared
by: S. Hemanth
Advocate
at Hemanth
& Associates
