§ 125 P.C..C According to § 125 CrPC, a woman may claim maintenance from her husband if he refuses to support herself. If a woman is able to establish a relationship of the nature of a marriage, she has the right to claim maintenance from such a partner, since the court may presume that such a relationship is a marriage and the woman can be considered a wife. Thus, if it is established that a relationship exists in the nature of marriage, the woman in a life relationship can avail herself of all the remedies at her disposal. In the founding case of S. Khushboov. Kanniammal (2010) 5SCC 600, the Supreme Court has held that a life relationship falls within the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court also held that cohabitation is permissible and that the act of two large persons living together cannot be considered illegal or illegal. 1) Duration of relationship In section 2(f) of the DV Act, the phrase „at any time“ has been used, which means a reasonable period of time for the continuation and continuation of a relationship, which may vary from case to case depending on the circumstances. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Supreme Court defined life relationships in five different ways: domestic cohabitation between an unmarried adult man and an unmarried adult woman.
This is the simplest type of relationship. Meanwhile, a similar case of a couple living in a relationship seeking protection was brought to the hearing before Judge Mittal`s bank, the couple through their lawyer, lawyer Mandeep Singh, claiming that they are both adults and have decided to enter into a life relationship. „They are sure of their feelings for each other. This decision has been the subject of great reflection. However, the family of petitioner number 2 (woman) is against the relationship and threatens to cause physical harm. A statement dated May 9, 2021 has also been submitted to the Haryana police, but no action has been taken to date. Since they have no other choice, they have filed this motion,“ the lawyer said. In Tulsa & Ors vs. Durghatiya & Ors (2008) 4 SCC 520, the Supreme Court gave legal validity to a 50-year life in a relationship. It was held that the Tribunal could presume the existence of a fact which, in its opinion, could have occurred. If one reads together the provisions of §§ 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act, it becomes clear that the marriage certificate can be presumed from the habitual course of natural events and the conduct of the parties, as confirmed by the facts of a particular case.
It was also found that there is a strong presumption in favor of marriage if the partners have lived together for a long time as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden falls on him, who tries to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. The law tends to legitimacy and disapproves of them. The Domestic Violence Act had been implemented with the aim of protecting women from abusive conjugal relationships (physical, mental, verbal or economic). However, according to Article 2(f), this applies not only to a married couple but also to a `relationship of a conjugal nature`. A live relationship not only gives the couple the opportunity to get to know the partner without having to commit to a legally binding relationship, but also excludes the chaos of family drama and lengthy legal proceedings if the couple decides to break up. Partners who have lived together for a long time may have children together. However, living couples are not allowed to adopt children in accordance with the guidelines on the adoption of children notified by the Central Adoption Resources Authority. In the event of a custody dispute, you can also consult a custody lawyer.
(8) Intention and conduct of the parties The common intention of the parties, what their relationship should look like and what it should include, as well as in relation to their respective roles and responsibilities, mainly determines the nature of that relationship. It can be clearly inferred from the Court`s approach that the Court is in favour of treating long-term life relationships as a marriage rather than turning them into a new concept such as a residential relationship. In Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522, the Supreme Court of India concluded that the life relationship between two consensual adults of heterogeneous sex is not a criminal offence (with the obvious exception of „adultery“), although it may be perceived as immoral. [It should be noted that the Supreme Court recently decriminalized adultery through its decision in the Joseph Shrine case.] In light of all this, even the Supreme Court has, in some cases, accepted that cohabitation falls within the scope of the established law. .