Live-in relationship not legitimate if one partner is married, no inheritance can be claimed: Madras HC
- In Reports
- 09:31 PM, Jun 19, 2024
- Myind Staff
The Madras High Court recently ruled that a married man's live-in relationship with another woman does not equate to marriage, and the woman will be considered a concubine. According to a bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, "A 'concubine' cannot be in a relationship in the 'nature of marriage' because such a relationship lacks exclusivity and is not monogamous. Consequently, such a partner cannot claim rights to succession or inheritance of the other's property in the absence of any codified law."
The high court was addressing an appeal by P. Jayachandran against a trial court's decision that awarded the title of a house site to the deceased live-in partner's father instead of to him. Jayachandran was previously married to Stella and they had five children together. However, Jayachandran separated from Stella and began living with Margerette Arulmozhi. He claimed that he had married Arulmozhi, although there was no legal divorce on record from Stella.
The house site in question was originally allotted to Jayachandran by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. During his relationship with Arulmozhi, he executed a settlement deed in her favour, referring to her as his wife. Approximately 2.5 years later, Arulmozhi passed away, and Jayachandran unilaterally revoked the settlement deed a few months after her death.
In the subsequent legal proceedings, Arulmozhi's father filed a suit seeking declaration of his title over the house site and delivery of possession based on the settlement deed executed by Jayachandran. He argued that under Section 42 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, he was entitled to inherit his daughter's property. He asserted that Jayachandran could not legally cancel the settlement deed as there was no legal marriage between Jayachandran and Arulmozhi.
In response, Jayachandran's counsel argued in the appeal that Jayachandran and Arulmozhi's relationship was "in the nature of marriage" because he had divorced his first wife in customary ways. The counsel further submitted that in her service records as a Headmistress in the Panchayat Union School, Arulmozhi had nominated him as her husband for all the terminal benefits including the Special Provident Fund cum Gratuity Scheme and Family Pension Scheme.
The single-judge bench noted that under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, a plea of "customary divorce" is not permissible, and divorce among Christians must follow the specific grounds outlined in Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act.
The court determined that Jayachandran's alleged marriage to Arulmozhi occurred while his valid marriage with Stella was still in effect and had not been dissolved by a competent court under the Indian Divorce Act. Therefore, the court stated that a mere statement in service records for nomination could not legally establish Jayachandran as Arulmozhi's husband. Regarding the settlement deed executed by Jayachandran in favour of Arulmozhi, the court held that she became the absolute owner of the house site.
Furthermore, the court held that upon Arulmozhi's death, her father was entitled to succeed to the suit property under Section 42 of the Indian Succession Act. In addition, the court commented that the terms "live-in" relationship or "marriage-like" relationship are often used interchangeably or misused, and it emphasised the importance of distinguishing between them.
The single-judge bench emphasised that a "relationship of marriage" continues under the law despite differences of opinion or marital unrest, even if the parties are not sharing a household. On the other hand, a "live-in relationship" is purely a mutual arrangement between the parties and does not have the legal status of marriage. The court pointed out that once a party to a live-in relationship decides to end it, the relationship comes to an end.
In this case, the court held that Jayachandran's relationship with Arulmozhi, despite knowing he was already married to Stella, cannot be presumed to be a valid marriage. Therefore, their relationship cannot be considered a relationship in the nature of marriage. The court cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court's clarification that not all live-in relationships are relationships in the nature of marriage.
Additionally, the court referenced a recent ruling by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which stated that a follower of Islam cannot engage in a live-in relationship, especially if their spouse is alive. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed Jayachandran's appeal.
Image Source: Bar and Bench
Comments