A 31-year-old Magistrate was arrested in Tamil nadu for ending the Live-In Relationship with a woman Police Constable after the Police received a complaint from her against he Magistrate for rape and Dowry harassment.
What is Live-In Relationship.
‘
Couples cohabit, rather than marry, for a variety of reasons. They may want to test their compatibility before they commit to a legal union. They may want to maintain their single status for financial reasons. In some cases, such as those involving gay or lesbian couples, or individuals already married to another person, the law does not allow them to marry. In other cases, the partners may feel that marriage is unnecessary. Whatever the reasons, between 1970 and 1990, the number of couples living together outside of marriage quadrupled, from 523,000 to nearly 3 million. These couples face some of the same legal issues as married couples, as well as some issues that their married friends need never consider.
In most places, it is legal for unmarried people to live together, although some Zoning laws prohibit more than three unrelated people from inhabiting a house or apartment. A few states still prohibit fornication, or sexual relations between an unmarried man and woman, but such laws are no longer enforced. Even in the early twenty-first century, some states continue to prohibit Sodomy, which includes sexual relations between people of the same sex. Although these laws are rarely enforced, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these sodomy statutes as applied to same-sex couples in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1986). The Court reconsidered the same issue 17 years later, however, and decided that a Texas sodomy law that applied specifically to homosexual conduct violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (lawrence v. texas, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2472,156 L. Ed. 2d 508 [2003]). Advocates of Gay and Lesbian Rights viewed the case as a victory for their cause.”
..
Family Law experts advise cohabiting couples to address these and other issues in a written cohabitation agreement, similar to a Premarital Agreement. The contract should outline how the couple will divide expenses and own property, whether they will maintain joint or separate bank accounts, and how their assets will be distributed if one partner dies or leaves the relationship. Property acquired during cohabitation, such as real estate, home furnishings, antiques, artwork, china, silver, tools, and sports equipment, may be contested if partners separate or if one of them dies. To avoid this, the agreement should clearly outline who is entitled to what.
When cohabiting couples separate, division of assets often becomes a contentious issue. In the past, courts refused to enforce agreements between unmarried couples to share income or assets, holding that such agreements were against public policy. In 1976, the California Supreme Court decided Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106, holding that agreements between cohabiting couples to share income received during the time they live together can be legally binding and enforceable. The highly publicized suit between actor Lee Marvin and his live-in companion, Michelle Triola Marvin, was the first of a series of “palimony” suits that have become more numerous since the 1980s. The plaintiff in a palimony suit must prove that the agreement of financial support is not a meretricious agreement, that is, one made in exchange for a promise of sexual relations. Courts refuse to enforce meretricious contracts because of their similarity to contracts for prostitution.”
In the case mentioned, the woman has been living with the Man for quite a few years and now she comes back, after he walks out on her, that he had been raping her and to add spice slapped a Dowry Harassment case against him!
Source.idiva.com
Had she wanted the protection of Law she should have married and registered it.
Reason is that both wanted to enjoy cohabitation with out the attendant responsibilities of Marriage.
You can not choose what is convenient for you and ask the Law to come to your rescue,
Now she also claims rape.
In the course of her relationship with him, she must have cohabited with him more than once.
Why did not she scream Rape, after the first instance.
Because she wanted it and enjoyed it.
Now that he decides to walk away,fearful of losing economic security, she is calling Rape?
What is this, if not Prostitution for you seek Money for Sex?
A woman, any woman, can scream rape after the Act is over, either immediately or even years later, it seems.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court Of India has upheld a petition that a woman from a Live-In Relationship is entitled to the benefits equivalent to that of a woman from a Marriage.(latest case)
Their Lordships ,in their Wisdom’ did not ask a simple question.
” If you want the benefits of Law as applicable to Marriage, why did you not marry?
But law, as usual, being an Ass, has given an earlier judgement in 2010.as follows.
”
1) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
(2) They must be of legal age to marry
(3) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried
(4) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
“In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act). To get such benefits the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied and this has to be proved by evidence.
“If a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and or as a servant, it would not in our opinion be a relationship in the nature of marriage,” the court said.
“No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act) but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ and not ‘live-in relationship’. The court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute,” the bench observed.
Their Lordships score in trying to be as unambiguous as possible!
Excellent!
Freedom to fornicate without responsibly is not practiced even by the Animals.
Sources:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Live-in+relationship
Related Articles
- Cohabitants beware! – Some legal considerations of living together. (mitchellsroberton.wordpress.com)
You must be logged in to post a comment.