Skip to main content

Live-in Relationship

 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP


INTRODUCTION

It means cohabitation is an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on a ong-term permanent basis I an emotionally and/or sexually intimate rekationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married. People may live together for a number of reasons. These may include warning to test the compatability or to establish financial security before marrying.

People can also decide to stay in live-in relationship because they are unable to marry, for instance, if they  are of the same sex, some interracial or inter-religious marriages are not legal or permitted. Some individuals may also choose cohabitation because they see their relationships as being private and personal matters, and not to becontrolled by political, religious or patrichal institutions. Indian society is yet to become more accepting of such relationships despite their being legal validity accorded to live-in relationship by the judiciary. 

CASE LAWS RELATED TO LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

  1. Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar 2010 AIR SCW 6497: the major question in this case was with respect to interpretation of the term “wife” in context of maintenance under live-in relationship. According to PWDVA, 2005 the court said that the act itself provides a very wide interpretation to the term “domestic relationship” so as to take it outside the otherwise confines of marital relationship in the nature of marriage. Thus, a woman in live-in relationships is also to all the reliefs in the said act. 

The court held that a man who lived with a woman for a long term even though without having undergone legal necessaties of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay maintenance if he deserts her. The man shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes b enjoying advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking duties and obligations. 


  1. D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal AIR 2011 SC 479: the apex court held that the relationship in the nature of marriage is akin to common law marriage which too require compliance with certain conditions, that is,

  • The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses. 

  • They must be of legal age of marry.

  • They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

  • They must be voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

  1. Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma AIR 2014 SC 309: the major question raised in this question was, would non-maintenance of the female in alive-in relationship, not in the nature of marriage, amount to “domestic violence” within the meaning of PWDVA, 2005 entitling her to seek the various reliefs under section 12 of the act.

The court pointed out the distinction between a relationship in the nature of marriage and the marital relationship, wherein it observed that a relationship of marriage continues notwithstanding difference of opinion or unrest, even if they are not sharing a shared household, being based on law. But live-in relationship is purely an arrangement between the parties, unlike a legal marriage. Once a party to a live-in relationship determines that she/he does not wish to live in such relationship, that relationship comes to an end. 


According to the court, live-in relationship with a married person cannot be a relationship in the nature of marriage. Party to such relationship would either be concubine, or one practicing polygamy f person having adulterous relationship. Where a person knowingly enters into a relationship with other knowing that he was married then the legal consequence of a valid marriage will not apply, hence the relationship would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage and the status of the lady would be of concubine. 

The court gave detailed guidelines basing it for the factual and legal positions i.e., 

  • Duration of period of relationship 

  • Pooling of resources

  • Domestic arrangements

  • Sexual relationship

  • Children

  • Socialising in public

  • Intention and conduct of the parties. 

The court pointed out the need for a law to protect the disadvantaged woman and children born out of such relationships. It also said that there can be no relationship in the nature of marriage between the same sex. The court delved on the issue of tort/damages for alienation of affection. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more