Supreme Court ruled that domestic
relationships where a couple lives together, outside of marriage, will be
considered as marriage under the law. Such relationships, also known as
live-ins have over time become increasingly popular. They allow individuals the
freedom of getting to know one another without the burden of a legally binding
relationship.
These easy-in easy-out
relationships exclude the abhorrent mess of family drama and prolonged legal
battles in case the couple decides to break up. Expectedly so, these
relationships are considered a taboo in Indian social culture. It is therefore
even more surprising that the Supreme Court now considers them to be marriage.
But before we pursue deciphering
the legal argument, let us try to understand what constitutes a live-in
relationship based on the following court judgments.
Defining 'live-in':
Indira Sarma vs VKV Sarma
The judgement of Indira Sarma vs
VKV Sarma by the Supreme Court, came in as a breath of fresh air. Amidst the
lack of specific legislation on the subject, the apex court made an important
decision to discuss live-in relationships under the pretext of the Domestic
Violence Act. The court stated, "Live-in or marriage-like relationship is
neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. The
decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is
intensely personal".
It was the task of the court to
determine whether this live-in relationship fell under the definition of
"domestic relationship" under section 2(f) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thus the court had to determine if this
relationship amounted to a "relationship in the nature of marriage".
There is no legal definition for
a live-in relationship. It is understood to be a domestic relationship between
two people in a romantic relationship. Sexual intimacy is popularly accepted,
although not mandatory.
A bench of Justice MY Eqbal and
Justice Amitava Roy said continuous cohabitation of a couple would raise the
presumption of valid marriage and the burden of proof would fall on the
opposite party to prove that they were not legally married.
The Supreme Court since 2010 has
consistently ruled in favour of couples living together as husband and wife,
giving the woman the rights of a wife. These rights include protection from
domestic violence, the right to inherit property, the legitimacy of her
children and the maintenance of woman after split.
Live-in and domestic violence,
nature of relationship:
D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal
The Supreme Court in this case
allowed a live-in relationship to come within the purview of the Domestic
Violence Act (DV Act), 2005, subject to fulfillment of some additional
criterion.
A woman under DV Act can request
compensation in case of physical, mental, verbal or economic abuse. The victim
has been granted several rights and protections under this legislation. The
woman is allowed custody of her children and a right to claim compensation for
any harm caused.
In the Velusamy case the
relationship was considered as a "relationship in the nature of
marriage". There are certain pre-requisites of such a relationship, for
instance, the couple must be of legal marriageable age, they must present
themselves in society as akin to spouses, they must have voluntarily cohabited,
they must be qualified to marry, therefore be unmarried.
If these guidelines are met, then
the relationship is considered to be a marriage, and a complaint can be filed
under the DV Act. In the Velusamy case the guidelines were quite vague,
however, there are cases where the court suggests specific guidelines for the
couple. Such as 'Domestic Arrangement', in which case the relationship will
only be considered in the nature of marriage if the woman is bearing the
responsibility of 'running the household'. She must do the household activities
of cleaning, cooking and maintenance.
So, according to the Supreme
Court, a woman's role in a marriage is restricted only to household activities.
Could one suggest then, that a woman who does not fulfil this role is
unmarried?
Live-in and inheritance:
Grandfather's mistress vs Rest of
the family
The recent SC decision was taken
during a property dispute case. A family contested that their grandfather, who
was living with a woman for 20 years after the death of his wife, was not
married to her and therefore she was not entitled to inherit the property after
his death. They contended that she was their grandfather's mistress.
Despite the woman failing to
provide proof that she was legally wedded, the court ruled in her favour after
the family members admitted she was living with their grandfather in the joint
family. She was therefore able to inherit any property of the deceased.
Live-in and having children:
SPS Balasubramanyam vs Suruttayan
In this case, the court suggested
that since the relationship extended over a long period of time, any child born
out of this union will be considered legitimate. There are however, certain
complexities in this matter. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 considers all
children born even out of a wedlock to be legitimate and therefore entitled to
any inheritance. Thus inheritance rights have been granted to children of
live-in relationships, with respect to both ancestral and self-acquired
property.
The problem here, is that in some
cases courts have relayed back to the Hindu Marriage Act, and in some they have
considered the time the couple has lived together. Thus raising questions of
equal judgement in the courts. Recently though, most courts have considered
children born out of wedlock to be legitimate.
The argument
Calling a live-in relationship a
marriage, is a lot like painting a horse black and white and calling it a Zebra
- It's just not true.
That being said, legitimising a
live-in relationship as a marriage does have its perks. Women have the right to
sue under the DV Act, children born of the union can inherit property, women
have the right to maintenance and/or property if they split, etc. These are all
aspects of marriage that would not exist for couples in a live-in relationship
had it not been for the Supreme Court's recent ruling.
However, how fair is it for the
State to intervene in one's private relationships? Yes, the ruling provides
safeguards for those who enter a relationship like this. Yes, it is
particularly beneficial for women and children. But even so, what of the
couples that have chosen not to be married and are happily living in a
consensual union?
It is definitely a problematic
ruling and one that is sure to be feverishly debated on social media and
traditional media alike.
http://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/sc-rules-live-in-relationships-are-marriage/
