Noting that the woman was unaware of the man's previous marriage and the three children it produced, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently affirmed an order requiring a man to pay maintenance to a woman he lived with and their three-year-old daughter.Call Now For Lawyers Legal Advice On Live In Relationship In India:-91-8877001993
Consult Verified Legal Experts
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
- • Startup Compliances
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
Experience
- • Audits
- • Trademark & other IP
- • Company Registration
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Consumer Protection
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Consumer Protection
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Audits
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Matrimonial Disputes
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • RERA Matters
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Court Marriage
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Case Transfer Matters
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • RERA Matters
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Anticipatory Bail
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Company Registration
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Cyber Crime
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Matrimonial Disputes
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Audits
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently rendered a landmark decision that has further complicated India's changing live-in relationship laws. Even after it was discovered that the guy was already married to another woman, the Court maintained the ability of a woman living with her spouse to demand maintenance from him. This ruling reflects the shifting dynamics of social and legal norms in India and represents a significant step toward acknowledging the rights of women in non-traditional relationships.
Maintenance to Woman in Live in Relationship: Why in the News?
- As per the orders of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed a man's plea contesting the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the court hereby orders the respondent to be paid Rs. 4000 per month and the child, Rs. 2000 per month as maintenance and further directs payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent in five monthly instalments.
- The recent case was examined by a single-judge panel comprising of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas who addressed the issue of a married woman living with another man and her claim for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005).
- The court underscored the Act’s vision and scope so as to explain that it was framed with the intention of protecting a woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home. It also made it clear that the Act provides additional protection to women against the threat of violence devoid of marriage.
- The respondent woman explicitly claimed in her testimony that she was unaware of the man's marriage and his children, the court further remarked.
- The High Court stated that both the trial and appellate courts had noted that the child of the respondent woman and a man was born in August 2017 and that man's name, rather than the father's, was written on the birth certificate and was not challenged or removed by him.
Contentions by the Petitioner (Man)
- The man had contended before the High Court that he was already married, so the respondent woman is excluded from the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 because she is ineligible for a live-in relationship.
- He maintained that a woman living with her male partner would not be allowed to request maintenance from him under the Domestic Violence Act. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013) for this viewpoint.
Contentions by the Respondent (Woman)
- The woman, on the other hand, recounted the testimony given above, claiming that she was married to a man, whom she had married on Diwali in year 2015.
- She also claimed that the applicant had abandoned her shortly after respondent No. 2 (the child) was born.
- She filed a complaint with the relevant police station, and they came to an agreement. But according to the man, he and the responsive woman never got married, so there is no chance that their child will be born out of wedlock.
As for the contention concerning the amount of maintenance awarded, the learned high court held that looking at the income of the applicant as a forest guard, which is considered a decent earn by the State Government, the maintenance amounts of Rs. 4,000 per month for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000 per month for respondent No. 2 granted by the learned trial court cannot be looked at as benefits too rich to be true. Hence, it cannot be said that the approach adopted by the trial court which was maintained in the appeal court on this factor is one that can be said to be perverse or one that is replete with illegality that calls for this court’s intervention.
The man's plea was then rejected by the court.
Sharks of Law offers a comprehensive legal solutions facility, providing an extensive collection of information on diverse areas of law and current developments in the legal field by the best professionals in this area. With this law firm, you can search and find a lawyer who can meet your legal requirements for online consultation. The attorneys at Sharks of Law have the necessary expertise across all the fields involved should you have any inquiries that require legal counsel.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
Adv Vipul Singh Raghuwanshi
Legal expert and contributor at Sharks of Law. Committed to providing clear and accessible legal guidance to everyone.