Can Live-In Partner Seek Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC? Supreme Court Issues Notice On Man's Appeal

The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 29) issued a notice in a plea filed by a man against the maintainability of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance application filed by his live-in-partner before the family court.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale heard the plea filed by the male partner against the Kerala High Court's decision that dismissed his plea questioning the maintainability of a Section 125 CrPC maintenance plea before the family court.

Dismissing the challenge to maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the High Court said:

“The definite case of the respondent is that, she and the petitioner have been living as husband and wife right from 2005. It is settled that Section 125 of Cr.P.C being a beneficial legislation, to maintain a claim under the said provision, strict proof of marriage is not required. Where parties cohabited for long period of years, presumption is in favour of marriage. If it is established that parties lived together as husband and wife for long period, the maintenance cannot be denied.”

Before the Supreme Court, the Petitioner argued that in a live-in relationship, the partner is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and therefore, entire proceedings are completely misleading and not maintainable.

After hearing the petitioner, the court was inclined to issue a notice to the Respondent to be returnable within six weeks.

Notably, in Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2015), the bench led by Justice TS Thakur (as he then was) referred three questions to a larger bench, amongst them one question was “Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?”

In 2018, a three-judge bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi refused to answer the reference, stating that the live-in partner is entitled to have a more efficacious remedy under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“In fact, under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005 the victim i.e. estranged wife or live-in-partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely, to a shared household also..”, the court said.

Soon after the refusal to answer the reference in Lalita Toppo, a bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi in Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar 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 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is unnecessary, since the provision is summary in nature and aimed at preventing vagrancy, particularly where the parties have held themselves out to society as husband and wife.

Cause Title: KP RAVEENDRAN NAIR VERSUS VASANTHA KV

Click here to read/download the order

Ms. S. Soorya Gayathry, Adv. Mr. C. R. Sivakumar, Adv. Mr. P. A. Noor Muhamed, AOR appeared for the petitioner