WOMAN IN A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP AND SECOND WIFE NOT ENTITILED TO MAINTENANCE

The woman in a live-in relationship and second wife is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfills certain parameters, the Supreme Court in VELUSAMY Vs D PATCHAIAMMAL [2010 (10) SCC 469] had observed that merely spending weekends together or a one night would not make it a domestic relationship.

A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur said that in order to get maintenance, a women, even if not married, has to fulfill the following four requirements:

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

2. They must be of legal age to marry.

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

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

The Supreme Court observed, in our opinion not all Live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purposes and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.

The Apex court passed the judgment while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the appellant D Velusamy.

Velusamy had challenged the two Court’s order on the ground that he was already married to one Laxmi and Patchiammal was not married to him though he lived with her for some time.

The Apex court also observed, "No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a Live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act), but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'Live-in relationship'. The court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute," the bench observed.

Related Articles:

Mutual consent divorce in India

Legal Principles

Legal perspective of the Live-in relationship

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

STUDENTS NOT TO JOIN, THE EDUCATION INSTITUTION WITHOUT RECOGNITION AND AFFILIATION

The institution that is engaged or interested in getting involved in imparting a course for training has to obey the command of law in letter and spirit. There cannot be any deviation. But, unfortunately, some of the institutions flagrantly violate the norms with adamantine audacity and seek the indulgence of the court either in the name of mercy or sympathy for the students or financial constraint of the institution or they have been inappropriately treated by the statutory regulatory bodies. None of this ground justice deviation. The Supreme Court said the High Court putting the blame on the statutory authority has granted relief to the respondent institution which is impermissible.

The Supreme Court in National Council for Teacher Education & Another Vs Venus Public Education Society & Others held:

“that without recognition from the NCTE and affiliation from the university/examining body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had an incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialize education and earn money forgetting the factum that such a attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the student to choose between Scylla and charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been “transparency”. Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking “vision of hope”, chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same”.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates