The Supreme Court held that a female live-in partner can not claim maintenance on a one-night stand or a few weekends live-in relationship.It has set out four conditions of a tenable live-in relationship:
They should present themselves before society as akin to man and wife;
They should live together under one-roof and in a shared household for a significant period;
Both must have attained the age to marry;
Both must have been eligible to marry legally.
13 Replies
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.
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.
[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.
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'.
[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'.
The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court are indeed rational and will discourage unsrupulous persons from misusing the live-in rights!
also the points put forth by Gulshan are indeed thought provoking!
[quote]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. [/quote]
You do have a point Gulshan, it will be indeed a tricky matter! BUt I think in cases of any dispute, the period of actually living together should not be the sole criteria for recognizing the relationship, it could be situation based and should be anywhere from between one year and more!
also the points put forth by Gulshan are indeed thought provoking!
[quote]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. [/quote]
You do have a point Gulshan, it will be indeed a tricky matter! BUt I think in cases of any dispute, the period of actually living together should not be the sole criteria for recognizing the relationship, it could be situation based and should be anywhere from between one year and more!
Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:
[quote]The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court are indeed rational and will discourage unsrupulous persons from misusing the live-in rights!
also the points put forth by Gulshan are indeed thought provoking!
[quote]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. [/quote]
You do have a point Gulshan, it will be indeed a tricky matter! BUt I think in cases of any dispute, the period of actually living together should not be the sole criteria for recognizing the relationship, it could be situation based and should be anywhere from between one year and more![/quote]
I just gave some suggestions which may be improved further. The idea is to ensure that there are well defined guidelines to decide as to what constitutes 'relation in the nature of marriage'.
[quote]The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court are indeed rational and will discourage unsrupulous persons from misusing the live-in rights!
also the points put forth by Gulshan are indeed thought provoking!
[quote]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. [/quote]
You do have a point Gulshan, it will be indeed a tricky matter! BUt I think in cases of any dispute, the period of actually living together should not be the sole criteria for recognizing the relationship, it could be situation based and should be anywhere from between one year and more![/quote]
I just gave some suggestions which may be improved further. The idea is to ensure that there are well defined guidelines to decide as to what constitutes 'relation in the nature of marriage'.
Topic Author
C
chinmoymukherjee
@ceeem
Topic Stats
Created
Friday, 22 October 2010 08:27
Last Updated
Tuesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
Replies
0
Views
1.8K
Likes
0