J&K & Ladakh High Court rules a woman in a live-in relationship cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if her partner is accused of rape, lacking a husband-wife relationship.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that a woman cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) from a man if she is in a live-in relationship with him and he is charged or convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape.
Case Background
The case involved a woman who accused her alleged live-in partner of rape. She filed a petition seeking interim maintenance for herself and her child, claiming that she had been living with the respondent as his wife for the last 10 years. The respondent, she claimed, had lured her by promising marriage and maintained physical relations with her, ultimately resulting in the birth of their child. Despite cohabiting as husband and wife, he refused to formalize the marriage.
Initially, the trial Magistrate directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs 2,000 for the petitioner and Rs 1,000 for the child. However, this order was challenged in the Revisional Court, which set aside the interim maintenance. The matter then reached the High Court.
High Court’s Reasoning
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized that the petitioner could not be treated as the respondent’s wife for claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC because:
- The respondent was charged and convicted under Section 376 IPC for offences committed against the petitioner.
- Maintenance claims under Section 125 assume a relationship akin to marriage, where both parties have an obligation to live together as husband and wife. If the relationship involved sexual exploitation or rape, such an obligation cannot exist.
- While the couple lived together, the element of consent was missing, which is critical for qualifying as a marital-like relationship for maintenance purposes.
The court held that since the respondent was prosecuted and convicted of rape, it would be difficult to hold him liable to provide maintenance, even on an interim basis. It found no irregularity in the Revisional Court’s decision to set aside the Magistrate’s order granting interim maintenance.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Surjeet Singh Andotra
Respondent: Advocate Pariksha Parmar
Case Title:
A v. B
CRM(M) No.1022/2022, CrlM No.2132/2022
Read Order:
