Is live-in relationship like a title suit?

The Supreme Court (SC) recently observed that a man and a woman living together for a long time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage, entitling the woman to maintenance after estrangement.

A cynic had a strange comment to make on the SC observation.

Possibly overfed on Ayodhya land dispute judgment, he said, “Is it also a sort of title suit? Does it mean by being in possession of a man without the legitimacy of marriage, a woman enjoys the presumption that she is entitled to benefits under the Hindu Marriage Act?”

I have my own question. Is live-in a new concept in India to attract such cynicism? Indian couples, encouraged by celebrities, have been acknowledging such ties and also breaking up with aplomb. And considering the fast-changing social context, Indian courts have started interpreting section 125 (right to maintenance) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973.

When our courts first began examining this aspect, they had little support except a California court’s ruling. The case was about a couple which had started sharing everything but was not married. When they split, the woman sought her share of the property they had together created.

The American Family Law doesn’t govern distribution of property acquired in a relationship outside marriage — such a relationship remains subject solely to judicial decision. The court was in a dilemma and came up with the concept of ‘palimony’ — ‘pal’ + ‘alimony’.

What Indian courts have to decide is how many years a woman has to be in a live-in relationship to become eligible for this relief. They have to also consider who broke the relationship.

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who piloted CrPC of 1872, had said the object of section 125 was to prevent vagrancy or its consequences. But there have been concerns in India that palimony may encourage adultery.