Rights of Women against Plight of Women in Live–In–Relationship

“Let’s, let’s stay together –

 Once the thirst is over,

 Let’s, let’s get separated –

 As it’s not legally”

A de-facto marriage or live-in-relationship is an arrangement where two people decide to live together with mutual consent under the same roof and cohabit like any other legal wedlock. What’s your call on a victim in case of its termination, especially in India?

The country that talks about notions such as Gender Equality or Women Empowerment is still filled with narrow mindsets. Because you are a woman, people will force their thinking on you, their boundaries on you. They will tell you how to dress, how to behave, who you can meet and where you can go. So can you imagine the plight of an abandoned woman with illegitimate children, where the live-in-relationship is considered taboo by scoundrels as it affects the societal structure? Most of the time the man deserts the woman, accusing her that it’s not legal wedlock and is not bound by law because he knows that there is a lack of adequacy in law pertaining to this aspect. Even if we go by previous judgements, they are conflicting in nature.

Conflicts of Law

In 1998, in the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (DB)[1] , Supreme Court held that the expression ‘wife’ in Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure[2] should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife. Whereas, in 1999, in the case of  Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr[3], Supreme Court held that the standard of proof of marriage under Section 125 is not strict and maintenance cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion of living together could be reached. Then in 2005, in the case of Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others[4], Supreme Court deviated and referred to non-statutory law of 1998 and held, however desirable it may be to take note of the plight of an unfortunate woman, but the inadequacy of law does not permit them as there is no scope to include a woman not lawfully married within the expression of a ‘wife’. In 2011, in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr[5], Supreme Court again deviated and stated that there was the presumption of marriage because they were in continuous co-habitation, strict proof of marriage is not necessary. It also stated that if the monetary benefit can be availed by a woman under domestic violence then why not under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

A live-in-relationship and women’s right may be recognized by the judiciary in a few cases but still lacks societal acceptance and continues to be taboo. In India, the concept of live-in-relationship is not expressly recognised by the legislature. Proper legislative enactments are required not only to protect the rights and interests of the partner to such relationships but also to determine the various other rights arising out of such relationships such as right over property, custodial right of children, etc.

References

1. CITATION – AIR 1988 SC 644.
2. SECTION 125 of Cr.P.C. – Maintenance to Wife, Children, and Parents.
3. CITATION – [(1999) 7 SCC 675]

4. CITATION – AIR 2005 SC 1809.
5. CITATION – (2011) 1 SCC 141

 Recent Posts

• AI Restructuring in GCCs: Skill Obsolescence,  Team Compression, and the Rise of “Prompt Pay”
• How Commercial Courts Are Reshaping Litigation?
• Good Lawyers Don’t Just Solve Problems. They Prevent Them. Why Don’t We Train Them That Way?
• The Duty to Step Aside: India’s Recusal Jurisprudence Under the Microscope
• How Patent Strategy Shapes Competitive Advantage in Modern Businesses?