Live-In Relationship With Married Man Cannot Be Treated As Relationship "In The Nature Of Marriage": Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has recently observed that a live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman was not one "in the nature of marriage" giving rights to the parties. The court added that in the absence of any codified law, the live in partner could not seek any succession or inheritance of the property of the other part. Justice RMT Teekaa Raman thus refused relief to a man who had entered into a live-in relationship with a woman despite being married. The court noted that a relationship in the nature of marriage required that the couple held themselves out in the society akin to spouses, voluntarily cohabited, must be of legal age to marry, and must be otherwise qualified to enter into marriage. The court noted that since the man's marriage with his wife still existed at the time of the live-in relationship, the live-in relationship could not be termed as one in the nature of marriage. “Where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law presumes that they are living together in consequence of a valid marriage will not apply and hence, the relationship between the appellant and Arulmozhi (now deceased) was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage and the status of the said person is that of 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,” the court observed. The court was hearing an appeal by Jayachandran who was in a live-in relationship with one Margarette Arulmozhi. Jayachandran was married to one Stella and had five children from the marriage. Jayachandran had executed a settlement deed in favour of Margaret which was unilaterally cancelled following Margarette's death. The issue related to possessing a property that Arulmozhi had settled in Margarette's name. The trial court noted that since Jayachnadran and Margarette's marriage was not converted into a legitimate marriage, the respondent Yesuranthinam, Margarette's father, was entitled to the decree of title. The court thus directed Jayachandran to deliver possession of the property. Jayachandran then preferred an appeal against this decision of the trial court. On appeal, Jayachandran argued that he had divorced his first wife Stella under customary ways following which he started the relationship with Margarette. He also informed that he had executed the settlement deed in favor of Margarette for her security. He contended that the trial court failed to notice that Margarette, in her service records, had nominated Jayachandran for pensionary and other service benefits as her husband. He added that after Margarette's death, he should have been treated as her husband, and the trial court had erred in treating him only as a living relationship. The court noted that, unlike Hindu Marriage Act which also recognized the caste system, the Indian Divorce Act did not recognize any such system nor any customary form of divorce. The court thus held that in the absence of recognition of any customary divorce, it could not accept Jayachandran's plea that he had customarily divorced his wife, Stella. The court thus noted that in the absence of any positive evidence of divorce, the relationship between Jayachandran and Margarette could not loom large into the legal status of husband and wife. The court noted that the Indian Christian Marriage Act recognized the principle of monogamy as per which, his first marriage existed. With respect to Jayachandran being nominated as the beneficiary in service records, the court noted that the same would not mean that Jayachandran was the legal heir. Noting that such nomination was only a self-declaration, the court held that merely because of such description, Margarette could not be called the legally wedded wife of Jayachandran. Thus, noting that the live-in partner could not seek any succession or inheritance of property in the absence of codified law, the court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. C. Shankar Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.G.Jeremiah Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 Case Title: P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others Case No: A.S.No. 340 of 2016Click here to read/download the judgment

Live-In Relationship With Married Man Cannot Be Treated As Relationship "In The Nature Of Marriage": Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags