Bhopal: Women in live-in relationships will take heart from a recent order by a high court.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a woman who has lived with a man for a considerable period of time is entitled to maintenance after separation, even if they are not legally married.
Shailesh Bopche, the petitioner, had challenged a trial court order which directed him to pay a monthly allowance of R 1,500 to Anita with whom he had been in a live-in relationship.
A single-judge high court bench of Justice JS Ahluwalia dismissed the man’s plea.
Bopche had contested the trial court’s order on the ground that Anita could not prove if they had got married in a temple.
The trial court also provided a finding that marriage didn’t take place between Shailesh and Anita at a temple. However, since Anita had a child with Shailesh, the trial court said she was entitled to an allowance.
“The trial court has not given a specific finding that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. However, the findings are that the respondent could not prove the rituals as well as the fact that, marriage was performed in the temple but later on trial court has given a finding that since the applicant and respondent were living as husband and wife for a considerable long time and the respondent has also given birth to a child, therefore respondent is entitled for maintenance,” the trial court had stated in its order.
Justice Ahluwalia upheld that order, noting that the only “bone of contention” of the applicant’s lawyer was that since the “respondent is not the legally wedded wife, (the) application under Section 125 of CrPc is not maintainable.”
According to Section 125 of CrPc, if a person with adequate means refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, then such a person would be required to pay a monthly allowance.
“Since the applicant and respondent were residing as husband and wife for a considerably long time and in absence of any specific finding by the Trial Court that respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the applicant, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by awarding maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 of CrPC,” Madhya Pradesh High Court said.
