This is a landmark judgment. The couple must be like any other married couple. They should be husband and wife in eyes of society. The Apex court has used the term- 'relation in nature of marriage' instead of 'live in relation'. Thus couple must look and behave like any normally wedded couple. There will be no maintenance claim for temporary relation.

Now the use of the word 'keep' occurring in the supreme court Judgment has been objected to. Such objections are not understandable. If a woman lives with some one not being wedded, he is called 'keep' or 'concubine'. Next, some body may object to use of terms 'Prostitute' and 'whore' also. The objections to use of words is not understood. If the word is replaced, the new word will also have same meaning and be similarly objected to.

That's really thought provoking,Gulshan! I also don't see any merit in this objection!

Gulshan,I wholeheartedly appreciate your views on this issue. :) :)

The Supreme Court has laid down the criteria for a live-in relationship on very rational lines!

Live-in relationship has become the most common thing among youngsters.I have seen some apartments in Chennai where many of the call center employees live-in together.Some of the flat owners encourage it as they make more money out of it.

But personally I am against it.

Gulshan's point makes us rethink of this decision of supreme court...whether it is good or not is doubtful :huh:

Rajani K wrote:
[quote]Gulshan's point makes us rethink of this decision of supreme court...whether it is good or not is doubtful :huh:[/quote]

Supreme court has given an apt decision. A lawfully wedded woman has definite rights as a wife. A woman not wedded according to social customs has also been given recognition by the Apex court. Some conditions have been attached so that woman in purely temporary relations or one night stand do not claim a wife's rights for compensation. Even though not married, a woman is living just as wife and this is publicly demonstrated, she will get right to compensation. But if it is publicly known that a woman is just a concubine, she will get no right.

However, there may be a dispute about actual status of a woman. The husband may say that the woman is just his 'keep' whereas the woman may claim to be living as full fledged wife. This will be a tricky matter. So, it will be better to define the relation more precisely. I suggest that if a woman has lived with a man for minimum continuous period of five years, she should be recognized as wife for all purposes.

The rational behind the Apex's court verdict is too apparent and temporary and casual relationships have been rightly refused recognition!

chinmoymukherjee wrote:
[quote]The rational behind the Apex's court verdict is too apparent and temporary and casual relationships have been rightly refused recognition![/quote]

I totally agree with Supreme court Decision that temporary and casual relations cannot be recognized.

But as there may be further litigation as to what constitutes 'temporary', i think this needs be defined. I think a period of continuous five years should be considered for recognizing the 'relation in nature of marriage'.