Live-In Or Live-In-Sin: Maintenance Under Non-Marital Relationships (Pt. II)

Abstract

Women can use this section to ask their “husband” or “father of their child” for maintenance. Courts have construed it to encompass women in committed, long-term partnerships that resemble marriage, even though it does not specifically name live-in partners—as long as certain requirements are met. Although this interpretation gives some optimism, it is still up to the judge’s discretion, which could lead to unpredictable results. It can be said that the 

Burden of Proof 

On the other hand, the courts have adopted the stance that if a couple reside together for an extended period as though they are married, the court might presume that they are married. In some instances, the court decided that even though the woman and the man were still single, they were presumed to be married if they had lived together as a married couple for three years without getting married. The conclusion would be drawn from the reality that two people who cohabitate as though they were married do have all the rights and obligations of a husband and wife, and are thus assumed to be married. The court held in A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Balahamy that where a man and a woman are proven to be living together as a man and wife, the court will assume, unless the opposite can be proven, that they were living together as a result of a valid marriage. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the same concept in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari but cautioned that the couple would lose legitimacy if the evidence of their cohabitation was refutable. As a result of these cases, live-in relationships can now be legally acknowledged as marriages in India. Additionally, it has increased the government’s obligation to enact live-in relationship laws. Courts may assume that people who have lived together for a long time are spouses. Such rulings go against matrimonial rules even though they are intended to protect women’s rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that live-in relationships are not criminal and has also provided strict standards for the protection of women in such relationships, even though live-in relationships are not recognised as legal marriages in India.

Judicial Discretion 

In D. Veluswamy v. D. Patchaiammal, the Supreme Court noted that the Parliament had made a difference between “relationships of marriage” and “relationships like marriage” and had made provisions for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, the Indian Judiciary has acknowledged marriage and living together as two separate entities. A live-in relationship cannot be referred to as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship if it lasts over a sufficient period. It further decided that the parties to such a live-in relationship must imply they intend to get married. By taking this stance, the court appears to support establishing a long-term relationship as a marriage instead of introducing or creating a new notion like a live-in relationship. A woman in a live-in partnership is qualified to request maintenance under the standards established by the Supreme Court if she has been with a man for a significant period and is economically dependent on him. The Supreme Court noted that it is not essential for a woman to strictly establish the marriage to claim maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. As a result, a woman who is not a man’s wife but is simply living with a man under the same roof may be eligible to claim maintenance under this section. When determining who is entitled to maintenance, the length of the relationship is crucial. The pair must present themselves as being similar to spouses to society, they must meet all other requirements for a valid union, including being single, they had to have lived together willingly for a sizable amount of time while presenting themselves to others as being close to spouses.  It is essential to note that a female in a live-in relationship can only request maintenance if she can demonstrate that the relationship was initiated voluntarily and without the use of coercion or fraud. The woman should also show that the male has abandoned her or has declined to provide for her. The burden placed on establishing that the guy is financially able to pay maintenance rests with the lady.

It is crucial to keep in mind that alimony and child support rules can change based on the particulars of the case and the state where the case is being heard. In India, alimony is a requirement under the law for one spouse to support the other spouse financially in the case of a divorce or separation. Alimony is not, however, allowed in live-in partnerships in India. The rights and responsibilities of partners in non-marital relationships are not governed by any laws in India because such relationships are not acknowledged by the country’s legal system. Consequently, if a live-in relationship fails, the partners lack the legal right to demand alimony from each other. However, the Indian judicial system has established a set of rules for requesting maintenance and has acknowledged the necessity of providing it to partners in non-marital relationships. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 grants the female partner in a non-marital relationship protection, maintenance, and the right to palimony (a type of alimony given to a previous partner in a non-marital relationship), upon her complaint. As a result, a woman who lives with a male in a live-in relationship has a right to maintenance payments from her partner. Additionally, if such a couple has a child, it will be assumed that the pair were married, and the male will be responsible for caring for the child. The child born out of such a relationship will also be regarded as a legitimate child. The prerequisite for such a relationship is that neither partner living with the other must be legally married to another person during the relationship. Thus, the judicial system has provided sufficient protection for female live-in partners and the children of such couples. The law’s passage also puts an end to abusive relationships that were prevalent in the past due to the family courts’ incapacity to identify such relationships. However, in most instances of non-marital relationships, the woman and the children are disregarded. The judiciary has acknowledged the necessity of giving maintenance to partners in non-marital relationships and has provided certain guidelines for claiming maintenance, even though there are no specific rules regulating the maintenance of persons in non-marital relationships in India. 

Conclusion 

Live-in partnerships are no longer an exception in the colourful tapestry of Indian society. The days of societal conventions dictating a strict route for marriage and family are long gone. However, one significant element of this changing picture of love and commitment remains unclear: maintenance rights in cohabiting couples. In contrast to the well-established legal structure surrounding marriage, live-in relationships are characterised by ambiguity. Although the law acknowledges them, it provides little protection, especially concerning upkeep. This puts partners in a challenging position where they could find themselves financially exposed in the event of a breakup or desertion, particularly women.

In conclusion, the status of live-in relationships is ambiguous and fluctuates based on society, societal expectations, region, etc.  Although live-in relationships are not legally recognized as marriages in India, the Indian judicial system has decided that they are not illegal and has also established strict guidelines for safeguarding the rights of women in such relationships. There are no specific laws governing the maintenance of individuals in non-marital relationships in India, however, the judiciary has recognized the necessity of providing maintenance to partners in such relationships and has given certain guidelines for making a maintenance claim. Thus, although not illegal, live-in partnerships are controversial and complex relationships that encounter numerous social and legal challenges especially when it concerns maintenance after the end of a live-in relationship.

In cohabitation, maintenance rights are not just about money; they are also about appreciating shared lives, commitment, and the vulnerabilities that may develop in the event of a breakup. India can advance towards a future where live-in partners, regardless of gender, can negotiate their relationships with dignity, security, and the certainty that their rights are respected by tackling societal and legal barriers. At that point, all families—traditional and non-traditional alike—will be able to thrive under the protection of justice and equality, and Indian society will be able to accurately depict the variety of realities surrounding love and commitment.