In a major development in Live-in Relationship, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a woman living with a man for a considerable period is entitled to maintenance after a breakup, even if they are not legally married. The court gave this ruling while dismissing a petition by a 38-year-old man Shailesh Bopche. The petitioner had challenged the trial court’s verdict which directed him to pay a monthly allowance of Rs 1,500 to respondent Anita Bopche (48), his wife/ex-live-in partner. The couple also had a child together.
A bench of Justice JS Ahluwalia ruled that maintenance cannot be denied if there is “evidence of cohabitation” between the couple. Justice Ahluwalia cited the findings of the trial court which concluded that the man and woman had been living as husband and wife. The bench further ruled that the birth of a child within the relationship cemented the woman’s right to monthly maintenance.
As per the case, petitioner Shailesh Bopche had challenged the trial court’s ruling to pay maintenance arguing that the respondent (Anita) could not prove if they had got married in a temple. Notably, the trial court also found that the marriage between Shailesh and Anita did not happen at a temple.
However, the trial court noted that since Anita had a child with Shailesh, she was entitled to an allowance.
In its order, the trial court had noted, “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, the trial court gave a finding that since the applicant and respondent were living as husband and wife for a considerable long time. The respondent has also given birth to a child, therefore, the respondent is entitled to maintenance.”
Justice Ahluwalia upheld the trial court’s order noting that the only “bone of contention” of the petitioner’s counsel is 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 the CrPc, if an individual with adequate resources declines to support his wife, who is incapable of maintaining herself, he must pay a monthly allowance.
The High Court remarked, “Since the applicant and respondent were residing as husband and wife for a considerably long time and in the 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.”
