The Madras High Court (HC) recently ruled that a married man’s live-in relationship with another woman is not equivalent to marriage, and the woman will be regarded as a concubine.
“A ‘concubine’ cannot maintain a relationship in the ‘nature of marriage’ because such a relationship will not have exclusivity and will not be monogamous in character and consequently he cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage,” said a bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman.
Consequently, a live-in partner in this scenario cannot claim rights to succession or inheritance of the other’s property without any codified law, the court held.
The high court was dealing with an appeal filed by one P. Jayachandran against a trial court decision that granted the title of a house site to his deceased live-in partner/alleged wife’s father, instead of to him.
Jayachandran was previously married to one Stella and had five children with her. However, he had separated from Stella and was living with one Margerette Arulmozhi. He claimed that he had married Arulmozhi.
Though Jayachandran claimed that he had taken divorce from Stella under the customary ways, there was nothing on record to show a legal divorce.
The suit property i.e. the house site was originally allotted to Jayachandran by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. During his relationship with Arulmozhi, he executed a settlement deed in her favour, describing her as his wife. About 2.5 years later, Arulmozhi died, and Jayachandran unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed a few months after her death.
Arulmozhi’s father subsequently filed a suit seeking declaration of his title over the house site and delivery of possession, based on the settlement deed executed by Jayachandran. He argued that under Section 42 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, he was entitled to inherit his daughter’s property, asserting that Jayachandran could not legally cancel the settlement deed as there was no legal marriage between Jayachandran and Arulmozhi.
In appeal, Jayachandran’s counsel argued that Jayachandran and Arulmozhi’s relationship was “in the nature of marriage” as he had divorced his first wife in customary ways. The counsel further submitted that in her service records as a Headmistress in the Panchayat Union School, Arulmozhi had nominated him as her husband for all the terminal benefits including the Special Provident Fund cum Gratuity Scheme, Family Pension Scheme.
The single-judge bench observed that under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, a plea of “customary divorce is not permitted” and divorce between Christians has to be effected only on certain grounds that have been described under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act.
The court held that the alleged marriage of Jayachandran with Arulmozhi was during the subsisting of his valid marriage with Stella which was not dissolved by a competent court under the Indian Divorce Act, hence, a mere statement in the service records for nomination could not cloth Jayachandran as Arulmozhi’s husband.
The court opined that in view of the settlement deed executed by Jayachandran in favour of Arulmozhi, she became the absolute owner of the suit property.
The court held that since Arulmozhi died leaving behind her father, as per Section 42 of the Indian Succession Act, he was entitled to succeed the suit property.
Apart from that, court observed that the terms “live-in” relationship or “marriage-like” relationship are often interchanged or misused and the distinction between them has to be noted.
“Relationship of marriage” continues, notwithstanding the fact that there are differences of opinions, marital unrest etc., even if they are not sharing a shared household, being based on law. But “live-in-relationship” is purely an arrangement between the parties unlike, a legal marriage. Once a party to a live-in-relationship determines that he/she does not wish to live in such a relationship, that relationship comes to an end, the bench pointed out.
The court held that as Jayachandran entered a live-in relationship with Arulmozhi, despite knowing he was already married, the presumption that a man and woman living together as husband and wife are in a valid marriage does not apply in his case. Therefore, his relationship with Arulmozhi (now deceased) cannot be considered a relationship in the nature of marriage, court held.
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage,” the court clarified.
Furthermore, the court referred to the recent ruling of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court that a follower of Islam cannot be in a live-in relationship, particularly if his spouse is alive.
Consequently, the court confirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by Jayachandran.
Comments
0 comment