<p>The Supreme Court has favoured passing a law by Parliament to protect an unmarried woman entering into a live-in relationship with a married man and children born out of such a relationship.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and P C Ghose, however, ruled that an unmarried woman who entered into a live-in relationship with a married man knowing well about his marital status cannot claim protection rights under the welfare legislation Domestic Violence Act.<br /><br />“Such relationship, it may be noted, may endure for a long time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and increasing number of such relationships, calls for adequate and effective protection especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship.”<br /><br />“Legislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital sex, though, at times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their opinion, for and against,” the court said.<br /><br />The apex court called for giving protection to such women and the children born out of such a relationship.<br /><br />“Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and the children, born out of such relationships be protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage,” the court said.<br /><br />The court passed the verdict dealing comprehensively with the definition of the term “relationship in nature of marriage” as mentioned under the Domestic Violence Act. It also analysed the laws of different countries in this regard.<br /><br />A Bangalore woman, who remained in live-in relationship for over 15 years with a man having two children, challenged a Karnataka High Court order setting aside a trial court’s decision granting her protection including monthly monetary allowance.<br /><br />She sought protection order, monetary benefits as well as right to residence with him under the Domestic Violence Act after she felt neglected by him.<br /><br />“The appellant was not a victim of any fraudulent or bigamous marriage and it was a live-in relationship for mutual benefits, consequently, the High Court was right in holding that there has not been any domestic violence, within the scope of Section 3 of the DV Act entitling the appellant to claim maintenance,” the apex court said.<br /><br />“Long standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and exhaustive,” the bench added, urging Parliament to ponder giving benefit to such people. <br /><br />The court said any direction to the man to pay maintenance to the woman appellant would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children.<br /></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has favoured passing a law by Parliament to protect an unmarried woman entering into a live-in relationship with a married man and children born out of such a relationship.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and P C Ghose, however, ruled that an unmarried woman who entered into a live-in relationship with a married man knowing well about his marital status cannot claim protection rights under the welfare legislation Domestic Violence Act.<br /><br />“Such relationship, it may be noted, may endure for a long time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and increasing number of such relationships, calls for adequate and effective protection especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship.”<br /><br />“Legislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital sex, though, at times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their opinion, for and against,” the court said.<br /><br />The apex court called for giving protection to such women and the children born out of such a relationship.<br /><br />“Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and the children, born out of such relationships be protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage,” the court said.<br /><br />The court passed the verdict dealing comprehensively with the definition of the term “relationship in nature of marriage” as mentioned under the Domestic Violence Act. It also analysed the laws of different countries in this regard.<br /><br />A Bangalore woman, who remained in live-in relationship for over 15 years with a man having two children, challenged a Karnataka High Court order setting aside a trial court’s decision granting her protection including monthly monetary allowance.<br /><br />She sought protection order, monetary benefits as well as right to residence with him under the Domestic Violence Act after she felt neglected by him.<br /><br />“The appellant was not a victim of any fraudulent or bigamous marriage and it was a live-in relationship for mutual benefits, consequently, the High Court was right in holding that there has not been any domestic violence, within the scope of Section 3 of the DV Act entitling the appellant to claim maintenance,” the apex court said.<br /><br />“Long standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and exhaustive,” the bench added, urging Parliament to ponder giving benefit to such people. <br /><br />The court said any direction to the man to pay maintenance to the woman appellant would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children.<br /></p>
