What are the Rights of Women in a Live-In Relationship?

Even a woman in a Live-In Relationship can claim maintenance. A dependent wife or live-in partner can claim in the Maintenance u / Domestic Violence Act- Supreme Court.

Case Name: Lalitha Toppo vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi in this recent case has categorically held that maintenance claims can be claimed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Domestic Violence Act), Even if the claimant is not a legally married wife and is therefore not entitled to a maintenance claim under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bench clarified that the provision contained in section 3 (a) of the DVC Act, 2005, which defines the term “domestic violence”, also constitutes “economic abuse” as domestic violence. The Court further noted that under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the victim or wife or live-in partner (in a live-in relationship) is also compared to what is considered for a shared house under Section 125 of the CrPC Will be entitled to more relief.

A wife living separately from her husband for no reason cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Case Name: Anil vs Mrs. Sunita

In this case, the wife left her husband’s house and also ended the relationship and moved into her matrimonial home. In this case, the husband also claimed that he had gone to bring his wife back but he refused. In the case the wife asked her husband for Rs. 5000 for In the case the husband claimed that the wife was refusing to live with him without sufficient reason, asking to end the relationship as well, and also that she was a lawyer and was able to earn and still seeking maintenance was.

In view of the above facts, the Madhya Pradesh High Court denied the maintenance of the wife and stated that in view of the facts of the case, the wife stayed in her matrimonial home for the first time for 7 days and the second time for 12 days. And it is alleged that he was harassed during these 12 days. It is practically impossible that he could have been so harassed that it is impossible for him to stay in his matrimonial home.

After 12 days she volunteered with her brother with a view to selecting the girl for her brother’s marriage. Thus, it cannot be assumed that she was thrown from her marital home with force or she was forced to leave her marital home. Maintenance of CRPC u / Section 125 Wife can place the petition at any place she is residing.

Case Name: Sachin Gupta vs Rachana Gupta

In the case, the petitioner has challenged the order of the trial court, dismissing the petitioner’s application, objecting to the claim of the defendant wife for maintenance in a live-in relationship under Section 125 of the CrPC on the land of the regional judicial . . It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent had made an application for maintenance in Delhi and the petitioner opposed it on the ground that in all the proceedings except these proceedings, the respondent mentioned his residential address as Aligarh.

On the other hand, the respondent stated that although Aligarh is her ancestral home, she was living in Delhi and had filed a petition in Delhi as she is living in Delhi with her brother.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and made the following comments in the case:

The High Court of Delhi has referred to Section 126 (1) of the CrPC which states that proceedings under 125 CrPC can be filed in any district where the defendant resides or where his wife resides or where the defendant is finalized. Lives with his wife or the case may be with the mother of an illegitimate child.

In view of the facts of the instant case, the High Court of Delhi stated that in view of the fact that the wife can file the petition at any place where she is residing and the fact that the defendant kept on record copies of her Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, indicating Delhi’s address, the trial court did not err in rejecting the petitioner’s application that the trial court has territorial jurisdiction.

The entire matter can be accessed here.
Agreement for waiving the right of maintenance by the wife is enforceable – Bombay High Court

Case Name: Ramchandra Laxman Kamble vs Shobha Ramchandra Kamble and Anr.

In an interesting judgment, the Bombay High Court has ruled that an agreement in which the wife gives the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, opposes the public policy and is therefore inaccessible.

It is also observed by the Court that the consent given by the Courts is nothing but a contract with the seal of the court imposing them. Accordingly, if the term of the contract itself is in opposition to public policy, such a term is void and inaccessible. If the word is serious, only the word can be declared void. If the wording is not serious, then, perhaps, the entire contract may collapse.

Also read, what is public policy?

The court thus stated that an agreement, in which the wife relinquishes or renounces her right to claim maintenance at any time in the future, opposes the public policy and, therefore, such agreement, even if entered into voluntarily Gone, not applicable.

Please follow and like us:
Need help? Call us: +91-925-070-6625
Anshika Katiyar

Anshika Katiyar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *