Chattisgarh High Court Upholds Maintenance To Woman In Live-In Relationship, Unaware Of Partner's First Marriage
Image by: Manoj Patel
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently upheld an order directing a man to provide maintenance to a woman with whom he had a live-in relationship and their three year old daughter, after noting that the woman was not aware of the man's first marriage and the three children born out of it.
The court passed the order in a man's plea challenging order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class–upheld by the Second Additional Sessions Judge–directing it to pay Rs. 4000 per month to the respondent woman and Rs. 2000 per month to their child towards maintenance and also compensation of Rs. 50,000 in five instalments.
A single judge bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in its order deliberated upon whether a woman in a live in relationship is entitled to get maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or not.
The high court in its order took note of the aims and object of the Act and said that the law had been enacted with an object of ensuring woman's right to reside in her matrimonial home, adding that it contains special provisions providing protection to a woman to live in a violence free home.
It thereafter said, "in the above back ground of the legal posison (sic) as well as considering the evidence, material placed on record submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is already a married person, therefore, the respondent No.1 (woman) cannot grant benefit of D.V. Act, as she cannot fall within the ambit of live-in-relationship also is being considered. The submission deserves to be rejected by this Court as the applicant has not produced any evidence on record to establish that the factum of his marriage and his children were known to respondent No.1 and despite this fact she made relationship with the applicant and from their relationship respondent No.2 was born".
The court further noted that the respondent woman had in her evidence clearly stated that she was not aware about the man's marriage and about his children. The high court said that the trial court as well as the appellate court had recorded its finding that man and the respondent woman's child was born in August 2017 and in the place of the father's name in the birth record, the man's name had been mentioned which was "not disputed or dislodged" by him.
"Thus the courts below have recorded its finding that the relationship of the applicant and the respondent No.1 falls within the ambit of Domestic relationship. Thus the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court cannot be said that it suffers from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court," the high court said.
The man had contended before the high court that he was already a married person, therefore, respondent woman cannot be granted the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), as she cannot fall within the ambit of live-in-relationship. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013) to contend that the woman living in a live-in cannot claim maintenance from her partner under the DV Act.
The woman on the other hand contended she had in her evidence stated that her marriage was solemnized with the man in 2015 at the time of Diwali and he is her husband. She had also stated that soon after birth of respondent No.2 (child) the applicant had left her. She lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station and an agreement was arrived at between them. The man however claimed that no marriage between him and the respondent woman was solemnized, as such there is no question of birth of the child from their wedlock
The High Court further distinguished Indra Sarma's case by noting that in Indra Sarma, the appellant was fully aware that the respondent was a married man, and despite knowing about the factum of the respondent's first marriage, she agreed to live in a live-in relationship.
Contrastingly, in the present case the court said, the respondent woman had clearly stated that she was not aware of the applicant's family, and the applicant has also not placed any evidence on record to suggest that respondent woman was aware of the marriage and his children.
"Therefore, the relationship between the applicant and the respondent is in the nature of marriage," the high court said.
With respect to the challenge on the amount of maintenance awarded, the high court said,“Now so far as quantam of maintenace awarded by the learned trial Court to the respondent No.1 Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- to respondent No.2 cannot be said to be bonanza or on a higher pedistrial, looking to the earning of the applicant who is working as forest guard and getting good amount of salary from the State Government. Thus, on this count also the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as affirmed by the Appellate Court cannot be said that it sufferes from perversity or illeglaity which warrants interference by this Court".
The court thereafter dismissed the man's plea.
Case Title: X v/s Y
Counsel for the applicant: Advocate Ramsevak Soni
Counsel For Respondents : None