About the Author: Suhani Gupta is a Student of the OP Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat.
INTRODUCTION
Marriage as an institution has been the very foundation of family and society in India. Legal frameworks have been formed around this social institution to protect the rights of people who fail it. The changing societal norms such as live-in relationships are becoming increasingly prevalent. This change leads to many challenges to the existing legal system. The focus of the study is the maintenance rights of women living in such relationships.
Laws like Section 125 of the CrPC[1] and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,[2] provide for maintenance. The law requires judicial interpretation in cases of non-marital relationships. However, a significant shift took place in Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse case. In this case, the court expanded the definition of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC to include women without a legally valid marriage who have been victims of deceit.[3] This interpretation reflects the judiciary’s effort to align legal principles with changing socio-cultural norms. However, ambiguities continue to exist in law, necessitating a holistic review of statutory provisions, and case law that could lead the way for recommended reforms to deliver justice to those outside marriage.
LEGAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS OF MAINTENANCE
Maintenance, in simple terms, refers to financial help usually offered to dependents to take care of their basic needs. When it comes to the Indian context, the term is covered under several statutes, as follows:
Section 125 of CrPC: Under this particular provision, a person having sufficient means is to give maintenance to his wife, children, and parents if they are unable to maintain themselves. The term ‘wife’ here includes a divorced woman but applies traditionally to legally married couples.[4]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act): The Act provides maintenance and residence rights to women in ‘domestic relationships’, which are defined to include ‘relationships like marriage.’ It provides rights to women staying in cohabitation, similar to the model of marriage.[5]
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA): This Act pertains only to Hindus and lays the obligation that husbands must maintain their wives, children, and aged parents. However, it mostly deals with maintenance relating to validly contracted marriages.[6]
Over time, through the court’s interpretation, the meaning of the word “wife” has been extended to include all those women who are in a marriage-like relationship. This broader interpretation was necessary to provide women with legal remedy, particularly in cases of void relationships, where they were left with no legal recourse. Therefore, this enactment also considered it necessary to define relationships that are like marriage in line with the intent of the legislature to offer protection to women against exploitative non-marriage arrangements.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS AND CASE LAWS
The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in interpreting maintenance laws concerning non-marital relationships. Landmark cases illustrate this evolution:
The Supreme Court’s progressive judgment was in Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse, where it interpreted the word “wife” under Section 125 of the CrPC to mean not just a wife but any woman knowingly entrapped in a void marriage.[7] The Court also decided that women who were married without knowledge to an already married man would be entitled to maintenance. This kind of interpretation falls within the purview of CrPC, which defines maintenance as a function of prevention of destitution and social justice.
In D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal, the Supreme Court provided that live-in relationships resembling marriage would also qualify for maintenance under the PWDV Act. It introduced parameters that determine such relationships, including long-term cohabitation, shared household, and public acknowledgement as a couple. These parameters were introduced to draw a fine line to distinguish casual relationships from those mirroring marital arrangements.[8]
The Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma decision was whether or not a live-in relationship with a married man could be termed a relationship like marriage for the Domestic Violence Act. The Court ruled that a woman who willingly enters into such a relationship is not entitled to maintenance. The judgment insisted on family sanctity but provided no remedy to women in such relationships, leaving them vulnerable in terms of finances.[9]
In Chanmuniya v Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, the Supreme Court said that women who live in a semblance of marriage would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. This judgment was more like a direction that the substance is more important than the form: The realities of relationships would be preferred over their legalities.[10]
ANALYSIS AND CURRENT SCENARIO
Various judgements by the judiciary lead to confusion around maintenance claims in non-marital relationships. The forward-looking approach in Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse[11] shows the importance of the judiciary’s consideration of social justice, for preventing nefarious practices from precluding a woman from claiming the right to maintenance. In the interpretation of the wife, including women in void marriages, the Court by this approach sought to give reality precedence over the essence of the relationship. The validity of the law was thus secondary. The approach is thus crucial in offering protection to vulnerable women and refraining perpetrators from benefiting in any way from their wrongdoing.
Judgments such as Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma, follow a very guarded approach especially when it comes to relationships involving married individuals.[12] The objective of the judgment was to discourage the harm of the sanctity of marriage at any cost; but, in the course, it proved to be more effective in leaving women in the resulting relationships completely without any legal remedies. Thus, this position is condemned for not bringing out the socio-economic vulnerabilities that women suffer as a result of such relationships.
The PWDV Act’s inclusion of relationships like marriage signifies legislative acknowledgement of live-in relationships. However, the lack of a clear definition leads to varied judicial interpretations. The criteria established in D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal—including shared household, duration of the relationship, and societal perception—provide a framework but remain subjective.[13] This subjectivity results in unpredictable outcomes, leaving many women without consistent protection.
Internationally, countries like the United States and the United Kingdom offer valuable lessons. In Marvin v. Marvin (1976), the California Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of express contracts between non-marital partners.[14] This judgment emphasizes the importance of contractual agreements in non-marital relationships. Similarly, in the UK, cohabitation agreements allow partners to predefine terms related to property ownership and financial support. These frameworks provide a structured legal basis for resolving disputes in non-marital arrangements.
In India, the Uttarakhand government’s initiative to mandate the registration of live-in relationships within a specified period is a step toward legal recognition. However, this action is also critiqued for its concerns about individual autonomy and privacy. It may perpetuate societal stigma against non-marital relationships, undermining the protection it seeks to offer. Furthermore, the mandatory registration requirement blurs the difference between marital and non-marital relations.
CONCLUSION
Belying the commendable attempts at attempting to extend the application of maintenance statutes to non-marital relationships, several inadequacies remain. Usually, the existing schemes are founded on traditional notions of marriage that do not correspond to the realities of the current age. Legislative reforms would therefore be required in this regard to make a more comprehensive and fairer system of recognition of different forms of relationships.
But the greater ability would be maintaining such legal recognition with the autonomy of the individual. Mandatory registration, as is found in Uttarakhand, is not the best way. It has implications vis-a-vis security infringement and the possibility of societal bias. Rather, India could look towards the practices of other countries, like cohabitation agreements, to provide such solutions without being too prescriptive. The legislation for maintenance must move out of the old-established moulds to carry forward social justice. Referring to a nuanced approach that recognizes individual choices without encouraging exploitation is requisite in solving the complexity non-marital relationships pose. It is only when India takes care to bring internal change in the laws to come at par with contemporary societal realities, that one would see laws to be aligned to both equity and justice for all individuals regardless of their marital status.
References:
[1] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 125
[2] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, s 2(1)(d)
[3] Badshah v Sou Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr (2014) 1 SCC 188
[4] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 125
[5] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, s 2(1)(d)
[6] The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956
[7] Badshah v Sou Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr (2014) 1 SCC 188
[8] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469
[9] Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma 2013 (15) SCC 755
[10] Chanmuniya v Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr (2011)1 SCC 141
[11] Badshah v Sou Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr (2014) 1 SCC 188
[12] Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma 2013 (15) SCC 755
[13] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469
[14] Marvin v Marvin [1976] 18 Cal 3d 660