Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 10653
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN, J
JAMUNA – Appellant
Versus
CHAKRAVARTHI – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.225 of 2024
For Petitioner:Mr.D.Rajagopal For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajkumar
A woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance, regardless of the validity of marriage, as established by the court.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 125 - The petitioner sought maintenance from the respondent, claiming a live-in relationship. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the case due to lack of proof of marriage. The court found that the relationship was established, and maintenance is due regardless of marital status. (Paras 2, 7, 8)
(B) Live-in Relationship - The court recognized that a woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance, as established in Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwah. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for maintenance after the respondent deserted her, claiming they lived together as husband and wife. The Magistrate dismissed the case, citing lack of proof of marriage. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found the relationship was proven and the petitioner entitled to maintenance, setting aside the Magistrate's order. (Paras 7, 9)
Issues: The main issues were whether the relationship constituted a valid marriage and the entitlement to maintenance based on a live-in relationship. (Paras 2, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondent's admission of cohabitation established the basis for maintenance, irrespective of the validity of marriage. (Paras 7, 8)
Result: The impugned order is set aside, and the respondent is directed to pay maintenance. (Para 13)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2023 passed in M.C.No.21 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and respondent were living together as husband and wife as per self-respect marriage. Subsequently, the respondent deserted the petitioner and that she was living separately. While that being so, the petitioner filed a maintenance case before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham in M.C.No.21 of 2017, seeking a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance. After appreciating the entire materials, the learned Magistrate dismissed the case on the ground that the factum of the marriage is not proved. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the respondent were living together as husband and wife under one roof. The respondent himself admitted before the Sub Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham that he used to visit the petitioner's house once in a month and there was a relationship between them. The said statement was marked as Ex.C3. Further, during the cross examination, the respondent himself admitted his signature found in Ex.P3 – deed of declaration of marriage and also admitted the signatures of his parents in the said document, but the respondent denied the signature of the petitioner in the said deed. Though the respondent himself admitted that they were living together, he cannot take a different stand that Ex.P3 is a false and fabricated document. He further submitted that, in order to substantiate the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and their marriage, on the side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. Further, P.W.2-Munusamy, has clearly spoken about the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and their marriage. However, the learned Magistrate failed to consider the entire facts and simply dismissed the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even assuming that if the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was not proved, but the respondent himself admitted that they lived together for sometime. However, the learned Magistrate failed to consider the above aspects and simply dismissed the petition. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court also very recently held that a woman who is in live-in-relationship, is entitled to get maintenance from the man, when both are not married or the marriage of the man or woman got dissolved. Therefore, the admission made by the respondent clearly shows that they were in live-in-relationship and therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not proved the factum of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Though the respondent denied the signature of the petitioner in Ex.P3, but the petitioner has not taken any steps to compare the signature to prove that the signature found in Ex.P3 is the signature of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has not examined any independent witnesses to prove their marriage and their relationship. When the respondent denied the marriage, it is the duty of the petitioner to prove the factum of marriage between them, whereas the petitioner has failed to prove the same. He further submitted that, earlier the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner, but nowhere in the said complaint, he has mentioned about their marriage. Furthermore, the petitioner is a married woman and having three children. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance and hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the petition and there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides and pe
