A woman living with a man for a considerably long period of time is entitled to maintenance on separation even if they were not legally married, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court established that a woman, who cohabits with a man for an extended duration, is entitled to financial maintenance upon their separation, regardless of whether their union was formalized through legal marriage.
This verdict emanates from a case presided over by Justice JS Ahluwalia, who emphatically upheld a previous decision by a lower court that mandated a 38-year-old man, identified in court documents as Shailesh Bopche, to provide a monthly stipend of Rs 1,500 to Anita Bopche, a woman with whom he shared a longstanding domestic partnership and with whom he fathered a child.
The crux of the case revolved around Shailesh Bopche’s appeal against the lower court’s directive, arguing that Anita was ineligible for maintenance on the grounds that their supposed marital union, purportedly solemnized in a temple, lacked conclusive proof of its occurrence. The trial court had indeed recognized the absence of definitive evidence confirming the marriage ceremony’s location or the execution of traditional rituals. Nonetheless, it had pointed out a significant consideration: Anita Bopche’s maternity to Shailesh’s child and their prolonged cohabitation were deemed sufficient grounds for her entitlement to financial support.
“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 trial court has given a finding that since the applicant and respondent were living as husband and wife for a considerable long time and the respondent has also given birth to a child, therefore respondent is entitled for maintenance,”
-elaborated the trial court in its judicious conclusion.
Justice Ahluwalia, in his judgment, addressed the pivotal argument presented by Shailesh Bopche’s legal representation, which contested the applicability of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in their scenario, citing the “respondent is not the legally wedded wife” as a critical point of dispute.
It’s pertinent to note that Section 125 of the CrPC explicitly outlines the obligation of individuals with sufficient means to provide for their wives, who lack the financial capacity for self-sustenance, with a stipulated monthly allowance.
In his deliberation, Justice Ahluwalia articulated,
“Since the applicant and respondent were residing as husband and wife for a considerable long time and in 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.”
This judgment underscores a significant precedent, recognizing the rights of women in non-formalized partnerships to seek financial maintenance, thereby affirming the judiciary’s evolving perspective on domestic cohabitation and the inherent responsibilities entailed.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Live-In Relationships
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
