'New law for live-in partners up to judiciary'
GURGAON: Even as city police officers do not want to comment officially on the trend of live-in relationships and its legal implications and about the recent spate of rape allegations against former live-in partners, some of them, talking off the record, are of the opinion that it is a wrong way to seek revenge after a relationship has gone sour.
Police investigating such cases have found that most of these allegations start after the partners have decided to end their relationship. Police have also found that in all the cases, it is the female partner who seeks legal action.
Such a case is filed under the same section as rape, that is, Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Experts say while introducing a new law for live-in relationships is difficult and complex, it is time the judiciary looked into the issues arising from a live-in relationship.
"The Supreme Court in various judgments has held that consensual sex between two adults can't be termed rape. But the younger generation thought that was a green light for live-in relationships, that they need not marryl; 'indulge in sexual gratification'; and then walk out any time without taking any responsibility. This may not be a correct impression," said Harish Malhotra, a Gurgaon-based lawyer.
In some cases, the Supreme Court has held that the consent obtained by false promise of marriage is no consent, and therefore it is rape.
"If any unmarried couple of the right legal age is "involved in sexual gratification", this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed "husband and wife", the Madras High Court has ruled in a judgment that gives a new twist to the concept of premarital sex," added Malhotra.
The court said if a bachelor has completed 21 years of age and an unmarried woman 18 years, they have acquired the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution. "Consequently, if any couple chooses to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional considerations," he added.
The June 17, 2013 Madras high court verdict
The petitioner A, a Hindu, and respondent OH, a Muslim, lived under one roof, had sexual relations, and had two children between 1994 and 1999. There was documentary proof that OH was the father of at least the second of such children. There was also proof that OH had applied for a "family card" for himself, A and the two children. However, A's marriage to OH was not registered in the Islamic marriage register, the Nikah book. In 1999, OH deserted A and her two minor children.
In 2000, she filed for maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month from him for herself and the two children, claiming that he earned Rs 25,000 per month from his business. OH denied that A was his wife, said she was a "dubious" woman, who was his coworker, and that there was no documentary proof of religious solemnization of marriage between them.
The family court judge observed that though the two children belonged to the respondent and were each entitled to a maintenance of Rs 500 per month from OH, and while A was entitled to Rs 1,000 per month from OH towards litigation expenses, A was not the wife of OH in the absence of documentary proof supporting their marriage.
However, when A filed a revision petition against this order of the family court, Justice CS Karnan at the Madras high court held that customary rites are not necessary to solemnize a valid marriage, and as long as there is no legal bar to A and OH's marriage, while they have also had children together, A's status has been elevated to 'wife' of OH.
Justice Karnan then went on to hold that if a man and a woman of marriageable age have a sexual relationship and the woman becomes pregnant, the couple will be treated as a husband and wife. Even when there is no pregnancy but strong documentary proof of sexual relationship, the couple will still be treated as married. If after having a sexual relationship the couple decides to separate, the husband can only marry another woman after a decree of divorce from the wife. Either part in such couples can approach a family court for declaration of valid marriage.
Karnan directed OH to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 500 to A, applicable from September 2000, and the arrears of such maintenance until May 2013 within three months. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/New-law-for-live-in-partners-up-to-judiciary/articleshow/21289236.cms
GURGAON: Even as city police officers do not want to comment officially on the trend of live-in relationships and its legal implications and about the recent spate of rape allegations against former live-in partners, some of them, talking off the record, are of the opinion that it is a wrong way to seek revenge after a relationship has gone sour.
Police investigating such cases have found that most of these allegations start after the partners have decided to end their relationship. Police have also found that in all the cases, it is the female partner who seeks legal action.
Such a case is filed under the same section as rape, that is, Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Experts say while introducing a new law for live-in relationships is difficult and complex, it is time the judiciary looked into the issues arising from a live-in relationship.
"The Supreme Court in various judgments has held that consensual sex between two adults can't be termed rape. But the younger generation thought that was a green light for live-in relationships, that they need not marryl; 'indulge in sexual gratification'; and then walk out any time without taking any responsibility. This may not be a correct impression," said Harish Malhotra, a Gurgaon-based lawyer.
In some cases, the Supreme Court has held that the consent obtained by false promise of marriage is no consent, and therefore it is rape.
"If any unmarried couple of the right legal age is "involved in sexual gratification", this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed "husband and wife", the Madras High Court has ruled in a judgment that gives a new twist to the concept of premarital sex," added Malhotra.
The court said if a bachelor has completed 21 years of age and an unmarried woman 18 years, they have acquired the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution. "Consequently, if any couple chooses to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional considerations," he added.
The June 17, 2013 Madras high court verdict
The petitioner A, a Hindu, and respondent OH, a Muslim, lived under one roof, had sexual relations, and had two children between 1994 and 1999. There was documentary proof that OH was the father of at least the second of such children. There was also proof that OH had applied for a "family card" for himself, A and the two children. However, A's marriage to OH was not registered in the Islamic marriage register, the Nikah book. In 1999, OH deserted A and her two minor children.
In 2000, she filed for maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month from him for herself and the two children, claiming that he earned Rs 25,000 per month from his business. OH denied that A was his wife, said she was a "dubious" woman, who was his coworker, and that there was no documentary proof of religious solemnization of marriage between them.
The family court judge observed that though the two children belonged to the respondent and were each entitled to a maintenance of Rs 500 per month from OH, and while A was entitled to Rs 1,000 per month from OH towards litigation expenses, A was not the wife of OH in the absence of documentary proof supporting their marriage.
However, when A filed a revision petition against this order of the family court, Justice CS Karnan at the Madras high court held that customary rites are not necessary to solemnize a valid marriage, and as long as there is no legal bar to A and OH's marriage, while they have also had children together, A's status has been elevated to 'wife' of OH.
Justice Karnan then went on to hold that if a man and a woman of marriageable age have a sexual relationship and the woman becomes pregnant, the couple will be treated as a husband and wife. Even when there is no pregnancy but strong documentary proof of sexual relationship, the couple will still be treated as married. If after having a sexual relationship the couple decides to separate, the husband can only marry another woman after a decree of divorce from the wife. Either part in such couples can approach a family court for declaration of valid marriage.
Karnan directed OH to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 500 to A, applicable from September 2000, and the arrears of such maintenance until May 2013 within three months. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/New-law-for-live-in-partners-up-to-judiciary/articleshow/21289236.cms
