Make law to protect women,kids in live-in homes: SC

Such relationship,it may be noted,may endure for a long time,and can result in a pattern of dependency and vulnerability,and increasing number of such relationships calls for adequate and effective protection,especially to

the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship. Legislature,of course,cannot promote pre-marital sex,though,at times,such relationships are intensely personal and people may express their opinion,for and against, the court said.

The court underscored that several live-in relationships fell outside the purview of the Domestic Violence Act,and women and children were deprived of benefits like alimony and shelter both because of the legal vacuum and the deficiencies in the law.

Parliament should ponder over bringing in a proper legislation or make amendments to the Act so that women and the children born out of such kinds of relationships be protected,though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage, it said.

The bench also laid down certain broad parameters to indicate the kind of live-in relationship that would fall within the expression of relationship in the nature of marriage under the Act.

Some of the guiding factors would be the duration of the relationship,a shared household,pooling of resources and financial arrangements,domestic arrangements,and a sexual relationship not just for pleasure,but an emotional and intimate relationship,and for procreation,it said.

Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties,therefore,intend to have a longstanding relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication, the bench said.

It noted that the parameters were not exhaustive,but were good enough to provide some insight into such relationships,and help pass appropriate orders for the women and children.

The court was hearing an appeal by a woman who had been refused relief by the lower court and high court,which had held that her live-in relationship with a married man in Bangalore was not in the nature of marriage because she knew that the man was already married.

The apex court also opined that a polygamous relationship would be in the nature of an intentional tort,and any direction for alimony or residence would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children of the man.

The court upheld the lower court orders but simultaneously asked Parliament to consider enacting a law to deal with such situations.