New Delhi:
The Supreme Court today asked the Parliament to bring in a law to protect children born out of live-in relationships.
"Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of 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," the Supreme Court said.
The top court verdict came on a petition by a woman who had a live-in relationship with a married man for around 18 years.
The woman had approached a lower court for payment of maintenance by her partner citing domestic violence act, and the lower court had directed the male partner to pay Rs 18,000, but the Karnataka High Court reversed the order on an appeal by the male partner.
The woman then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court order.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court said, "Live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, though socially unacceptable in this country."
"Since the appellant was aware that the respondent was a married person even before the commencement of their relationship, hence the status of the appellant is that of a concubine or a mistress, who cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage. Long standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and Exhaustive," the court said.
"If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to "domestic violence" under Section 3 of the DV Act," the top court added.
By this reason, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court order denying maintenance to the woman.