SUPREME COURT ISSUES NOTICE IN MAN’S APPEAL ON WHETHER LIVE-IN PARTNER CAN CLAIM MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 CRPC:

The Supreme Court on Friday, August 29, issued a notice in a plea filed by a man challenging the maintainability of a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance application submitted by his live-in partner before the family court. The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, heard the appeal against the Kerala High Court’s decision, which had dismissed the man’s plea questioning the maintainability of his partner’s claim. The High Court had held that the respondent had established that she and the petitioner had been living together as husband and wife since 2005. It observed that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., being a beneficial legislation, does not require strict proof of marriage. The Court noted that when parties have cohabited for a long period, there arises a presumption in favor of marriage, and where it is established that they lived together as husband and wife for a considerable time, maintenance cannot be denied.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that a live-in partner is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and argued that the proceedings initiated by his partner were therefore entirely misleading and not maintainable. After hearing the arguments, the bench expressed its inclination to issue a notice to the respondent, with the notice returnable within six weeks. The Court’s attention was also drawn to the precedent set in Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2015), where a bench led by then Justice T.S. Thakur referred three questions to a larger bench. One of the questions asked whether cohabitation of a man and woman as husband and wife for a substantial period could raise a presumption of a valid marriage and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In 2018, a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi declined to answer this reference, observing that a live-in partner is entitled to a more efficacious remedy under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court noted that under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, an estranged wife or live-in partner can claim broader relief, including the right to a shared household, which exceeds what Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides.

The Supreme Court also considered the ruling in Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, where a bench led by Justice R. Banumathi upheld a family court’s decision granting maintenance to a woman whose status as a wife had been disputed. The Court clarified that in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is unnecessary because the provision is summary in nature and is designed to prevent vagrancy. It emphasized that where parties have publicly represented themselves as husband and wife, maintenance claims can be entertained, even if formal marriage cannot be strictly proven. This line of reasoning underscores the principle that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is aimed at ensuring financial support for dependent partners and preventing hardship, rather than enforcing technicalities of formal marriage.

By issuing the notice, the Supreme Court has signaled its intent to examine whether live-in partners can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while balancing legal principles with the protective intent of the legislation for dependent individuals in long-term cohabitation relationships.