A recent
Supreme Court (SC) judgment, involving a couple, Radhika Singh and Loli,
has led to speculation over its implications for the status of live-in
relations in Indian society. The media has tended to focus on the fact
that the judgment held that 'if a man and a woman live together and
cohabit for a long spell as husband and wife, there is a presumption of
a valid marriage between the two'.
From this can it be extrapolated that now live-in relations have
acquired the status of marriage in India? Can the SC judgment be seen as
a legal stamp on relations otherwise treated as outside the ambit of
law? Some perceive the judgment as an invitation to bear children
outside marriage, while there are others who are expressing the clearly
misplaced concern that such a judgment could be the basis of even a
flat-mate seeking alimony.
It is worth pointing out that in this instance - Singh and Loli - we are
hardly witnessing the making of a new law. The judgment is based on the
existing legal provisions and this is not the first time such a ruling
has been given. The judgment itself cites several previous instances in
which the courts have ruled in a similar fashion. Moreover, the SC has,
in fact, restored a 22-year-old judgment of the trial Court in this
case.
A closer look at the specifics of the case - Tulsa & Others vs
Durghatiya & others - reveals that primarily it is not so much about
non-marital relations between the couple but about a property dispute
within the extended family. Consequent to Singh's death, one of his
brother's children questioned the right to his property exercised by
Loli and her children on the grounds that she was not married to him.
It was further claimed that Loli was previously married to one Mangal
Katchhi and had started cohabiting with Singh before Mangal had died.
The different parties to the case, however, did not question the fact
that Singh and Loli had lived together as husband and wife for 30 years
and that the two had borne several children together. Radhika Singh had
also given away his two daughters in marriage, as upper caste men are
expected to. In view of these facts and in the absence of any strong
evidence supporting the contention that Loli had started living with
Singh prior to Mangal's death, the Court ruled in favor of regarding the
Singh-Loli relationship as that of marriage.
The judgment cites Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which
permits the Court to presume the existence of any facts which it thinks
are likely to have occurred. It is suggested that 'the act of marriage
may be presumed from the common course of natural events and the conduct
of parties as they are borne out by the facts of a particular case'.
It is also important to remember that in this instance Singh had no
other wife or child through any other relationship, which is often a
complicating factor in such cases. Another recent SC judgment is
enlightening in this regard.
Vidyadhari & others vs Sukhrana Bai & others involves a dispute over
succession. Both Sukhrana Bai, the first wife of Sheetaldeen, and
Vidyadhari who lived with Sheetaldeen for 20 to 25 years after he ceased
to live with Sukhrana, sought a succession certificate from the court
after his death.
Vidyadhari had been made a nominee in the Provident Fund and also had
four children from Sheetaldeen unlike Sukhrana. Here, it is significant
that the SC did not accept Vidyadhari's claim to succession as the trial
court had. Instead, it ruled in favor of her children on the one hand
and Sukhrana on the other, who would have claim to one-fifth share of
the property. This, despite the long-term live-in relation Vidyadhari
had with Sheetaldeen.
There is a strong tendency in Court decisions to recognize the genitor's
obligation towards children borne of any long- or even short-term
relations, marital or otherwise. In a two-year-old judgment - Savitaben
Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujarat & others - the SC granted
maintenance to a child born out of a married man's second marriage but
did not recognize the legitimacy of the relation even though there was
enough evidence to prove that the second wife had no knowledge regarding
the previous marriage of the man. The judges even treated the case as 'a
classic example of the inadequacies of law in protecting a woman who
unwittingly entered into relationships with a married man'.
The gist is that while the judgment in the case of Radhika Singh and
Loli is notable, it hardly follows that marriage, as an institution, has
now become superfluous. The other cases discussed indicate that marriage
has to do with so much more than the relation between a man and a woman.
Whenever there is conflict of interests, the existing laws are used in
many possible ways to adjudicate situations, which are by no means
unambiguous.
If the major concern of live-in couples is such rights and claims, it
might be in their best interest to ensure that the law is on their side.
There is something incongruous about shunning the legality of marriage
on the one hand and desiring the protection of law on the other.
Boloji.com is owned and managed by
Boloji Media Inc Privacy Policy |
Disclaimer No part of this Internet site may
be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
