A live-in relationship is illegitimate when one of the couples is already married, according to a recent ruling by the Madras High Court.
Judge RMT Teekaa Raman additionally stated in a decision dated June 7 that two adults living together who one of them was previously married to are not entitled to any succession or inheritance rights to the assets of their purported live-in partner.
The Court further declared that it is inappropriate for couples in extramarital relationships to refer to their arrangement as “live-in.”
“If the two individuals are single and decide to live their lives independently as adults, the situation can be different. The High Court stated, “This Court has noticed that adults who engage in extramarital relationships are now calling them “live-in” relationships, which is a misnomer and should be discouraged.”
The order was made by the court while it was considering an appeal that a P Jayachandran filed to overturn a trial court’s decision.There was no marriage between Jayachandran and Margarette Arulmozhi, who was living together.
Jayachandran had five children from a previous marriage to a different woman. Even though they didn’t stay in a partnership, legally they weren’t divorced. In this period, Arulmozhi and Jayachandran purchased a home, which they registered in Arulmozhi’s name by executing a settlement deed in her favor.
Following Arulmozhi’s death in 2013, Jayachandran unilaterally revoked the settlement deed and attempted to reclaim the residence in his own name. But the trial court granted the father of Arulmozhi’s late daughter’s claim to her belongings.
Jayachandran then made a High Court application. Despite not being officially married, he and Arulmozhi were living together as husband and wife, therefore according to his attorney, he should be entitled to her belongings upon her passing.
However, Justice Teekaa Raman decided that Jayachandran’s “alleged live-in relationship” with Arulmozhi could not be awarded the “legal status of the husband and wife” in the absence of a legitimate divorce between him and his wife.
Regarding the matter at hand, the appellant acknowledges that he knew Arulmozhi—who is now deceased—was a married man with a wife and five children when he decided to live with him. The relationship between the appellant and Arulmozhi (who is now deceased) was not one in the sense of a marriage; rather, the said individual’s status is that of a concubine. This is because the law does not presume that a man and a woman are living together as a result of a valid marriage when it is proven that they have lived together as husband and wife. According to the High Court, a “concubine” is not allowed to continue a connection in the “nature of marriage” since it lacks exclusivity and is not monogamous in nature. As a result, the concubine is not allowed to get into a relationship in the traditional sense of marriage.
Although it maintained the trial court’s ruling, the High Court ruled that Arulmozhi’s father’s other legitimate heirs were entitled to the property because he passed away before the hearing could take place.
Jayachandran’s attorney, C Shankar, made an appearance.
The legal heirs of Arulmozhi’s father were represented by attorney G Jeremiah.
CASE NAME – P Jayachandran vs Yesuranthinam
NAME – KARUBAKI MOHANTY, B.A.LLB, COLLEGE – SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, BHUBANESWAR, INTER UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments