Introduction:
Marriage is a sacred consortium of two people and their families. Atop which, it is a legally recognized relationship. On the other hand, considered as a social stigma Live-in relationship is the up and coming trend followed by many people post the 2010s. A live-in relationship can be defined as a relationship between two people living a life filled with freedom and liberty, with no commitment of marriage that is no obligations or duties towards each other, although it is in the nature of marriage as held in the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The right of the spouse with regard to inheritance of property seems to be an issue the Indian judiciary took to study, drawing examples from the ‘palimony’ system adopted by the California Supreme Court. In the current scene, as anybody can write any person’s name in the will, property inheritance is possible in the case of testamentary succession.
When such a relationship exists, it is natural that two people are sexually involved and out of which a child may be born. Previously, this child was illegitimate and has no legal standing but now even if the parents are estranged, the father has the legal duty of maintenance under CrPC Section 125 but none of the personal laws give provisions for the same as live-in relationships are not even recognized by them in the first place.
The paper will deal with more such aspects pertaining to live-in relationships and inheritance of property.
Indian Judiciary and Live-in Relationships
Although live-in relationships are looked down upon as a stigma, it is not so rare in the current scenario in metropolitan cities. No statute governing marriages like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Special Marriage Act, 1954, and Indian succession act, 1925 recognizes the live-in relationship. Although the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives legitimacy to the children born out of live-in relationships and has the right to inherit property. The prevention of women against domestic violence act, 2005provides for protection of women under the same provisions, as live-in relationships are in the nature of marriage. As stated in section 2(f) of the act “a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household, where they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”
The act defines that protection would be guaranteed for all women in the domestic household despite the absence of marital relationships. In one particular case of Mohabat Ali vs. Mohammed Ibrahim Khan[1], the law presumes in favor of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. Supreme Court also held that in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[2], those live-in relationships are permissible only between consenting adults who are above the age of 18.
On account of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha[3], the Supreme Court saw that “in those situations where a man, who lived with a woman for quite a while and even despite the fact that they might not have been married, at risk to pay the woman maintenance in case.
Court likewise defined “spouse” comprehensively under Section 125 of CrPC[4]for maintenance, so that even women in live-in relationship can be guaranteed maintenance. By this, the judiciary has established the status of live-in relationships.
How can inheritance rights in a live-in relationship be determined?
The inheritance rights in a live-in relationship is not given clarity by many statutes as the whole concept of live-in relationship is impugned and does not have proper legal backing. Due to this, the paper seeks to draw parallels from foreign jurisprudence. In the Californian case of Marvin vs. Marvin,[5] the court laid down three cases that can provide for how inheritance of property can happen in case of a live-in relationship.
- The provisions of the Family Law Act do not govern the distribution of property acquired during a nonmarital relationship; such a relationship remains subject solely to judicial decision. The property transferred in the period of live-in relationship has no reverence in law as there is no law governing the same due to which the nature of the relationship will be put to judicial scrutiny
- The courts should enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except to the extent that the contract is explicitly founded on the consideration of meretricious sexual services. Since there is no established legal relationship between the two parties, the state must enforce a contract between the live-in partners to an extent as far as it does not call for the consideration to be sexual intercourse without monetary benefit. This encroaches upon the dignity of the person and hence, is strictly prohibited.
- In the absence of an express contract, the courts should inquire into the conduct of the parties to determine whether that conduct demonstrates an implied contract, agreement of partnership or joint venture, or some other tacit understanding between the parties. When the state does not see a contract in place of their relationship, the court should look into the nature of their relationship and the conduct of the parties involved
It is notable that most courts govern the idea of inheritance and palimony on the basis of the presence of contracts between the parties. The courts also are silent on whether cohabitation is required to strengthen the plaint for palimony.
An alternative to this is that the courts can determine the rights of inheritance of the property of a person by the degree of unjust enrichment. The concept of unjust enrichment is when one person unjustly enriches or is advantaged by the other and in this case, is liable to restore the other with the enrichment provided. The live-in partner can bring a suit against his/her partner for unjust enrichment. But, unjust enrichment can be difficult to prove as consideration could be even the smallest things like maintenance of the household, paying for the petty expenditures of the house, cooking for the people at home, etc.
The other way to procure inheritance rights is by the most common means-a testament or a will. In the case of Vidhyadhari[6], the live-in partner claimed for inheritance rights based on the nomination for insurance claim made by the deceased and also got the succession certificate.
One major challenge to the judiciary in the absence of the definition of the live-in relationship as in some cases, a couple is deemed to be married, and in otherwise, the legality of the relationship is put to question. This lack of definition also gives rise to the problem of whether live-in partners come into the ambit of family members.
Ultimately the proposal is the provision of intestate succession for the live-in partners. Professor Waggoner proposes a 5-prong rule to determine who can be called a live-in partner. [7] The foremost rule is that the partners in the nature of a live-in relationship must be two consenting adults; the second is that they should not have been related by consanguinity which means by other ways they cannot have married as their ‘marriage’ is prohibited by the law; the third is that the persons should have not been married at the time of the live-in relationship; fourthly they should cohabitate in one place, irrespective of whether they have other places to live and finally that the nature of the relationship should be marriage-like. But this model is parochial to cases and does not determine whether the heirs can make standing claim in the court of law as it is to be left at the discretion of the court. Surprisingly, this 5-prong strategy has been tacitly followed in the case of D Veluchaamy vs Patchaiammal[8] and has proven to be efficient in recognizing and providing backing in the law for up and coming social changes.
Another scholar named Spitko has roughly laid out 4 elements on which inheritance can be administered- the intention to donate and give property by means of intestate succession, reliance, reciprocity, and convenient administration process. In addition to that, the amount of property will be determined by how much time has been spent between the partners in the live-in relationship.
Therefore, it is clear that in the litany of the cases cited and scholarly opinions presented, there is no definite provision for the inheritance of property in a live-in relationship but it can be formulated looking into the nature of marriage.
Status of Children in Live-in Relationships
Children structure the most important unit of the society’s culture and their life is regularly controlled by the social relations administering each circle of their lives. In light of this, couples who are involved in a live-in-relationship and hence engage in sexual intercourse, resulting in the birth of such children essentially, decide where these children are placed in the eyes of law.
It is contended that the HMA 1955 through Section 16 dealing with the legitimacy of children, out of the void and voidable relationships, the enactment in a roundabout way attributes a lawful status to children conceived out of live-in relations and it is just their property and support rights subject to discuss. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act additionally gives that the legitimacy of a child is demonstrated just on the off chance that he/she was conceived during the continuation of a substantial marriage between ist parents and thus neglects to address the issue of the children resulting from live-in relationships. Therefore, in India, such youngsters have been given the status of-“legitimate in law, Illegitimate by fact” which is proof of the ostracizing such people face often, the bleak future anticipating them and their arrangement in an alternate strata of the general public.
In the case of SPS Balasubramanyam vs Sruttayan[9], it was upheld that “if a man and woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be a presumption under section 114 of the evidence act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate.” This case proved to be a stalwart as it upheld the legitimacy of children born out of wedlock and pressed on article 39A by which it posed an express obligation and duty on the part of the state to take care and foster the children born in the state in the absence of parental guidance and how the state must also ensure a conducive and congenial environment for the children to grow and foster their development in a healthy manner. A more important case that throws light on the rights of the child to inherit property is given in Bharatha Matha vs Vijaya Raghavan[10] .
If there is no property to be inherited, the child is entitled to maintenance at least as given under CrPC section 125, and the child comes under the ambit of the relative as enunciated under the same and the question of illegitimacy is immaterial. However, these children are excluded from the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In any case of procuring maintenance, it is important for the child to prove the fatherhood of the man under question.
As the judiciary treats both legitimate and illegitimate children as the same and puts them both on an equal footing with respect to their birth identity, the courts are also of the opinion that they both should be entitled to property rights. Property rights essentially allude to the inheritance rights of children born out of live-in relationships. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a legitimate Child, both son and daughter belongs to a Class-I beneficiary to the joint family property. Then again, under Hindu Law, an illegitimate child acquires the property of his mom just and not from the side of the father as this position of the father makes it difficult to ascertain the fatherhood.
Revanasidappa vs Mallikarjun[11] brought out the essence of whether the property inherited by the child born out of such a relationship must be self-acquired only by the parents of the child as the lack on the intention on the behalf of parents to get married exhibits that the ancestral property to be acquired was not hoped about. Since there is a presumption of marriage the court has been generous enough to grant the child the property rights.
Some cases argue that section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, vesting the status of legitimacy on children born out of wedlock was to provide a faint legitimacy to the otherwise wholly illegitimate person. This also meant that the child was not entitled to co-parcenary or ancestral property. But to quote Article 300A,
Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” But the right to property is not a fundamentally guaranteed and is only constitutional in nature. Holding that true, since the illegitimate children are also deemed to be legitimate, depriving them of their property, to be acquired from the property that their parents have is a violation of the constitutional right to hold property.
Another key issue is the custody of the child born out of the lie in a relationship. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act states that the father is the natural guardian but in case of a live-in relationship, the custody goes to the mother. When the parents break up, the custodial rights go to the father and this provision has proven to be unjust to gender equality as provided in Githa Hariharan vs. Reserve Bank of India.[12]
Ergo, this concept is always under dispute but the good thing that rose out of it is the establishment of the legitimacy of an otherwise illegitimate child.
Conclusion
The live-in relationships are pretty complex as they have components to pass for a marriage and non-marriage that makes the court apply relevant statutes according to the facts. The straitjacketing of rights of inheritance for both the spouses and the child is not possible without the presence of a legislation mandating a type of registration of such a relationship, differentiating it from that of marriage. The children born out of live-in relationships have property rights although it can be challenged at times. Such children with parents shuttling between each other’s lives must ensure a healthy and happy environment as the lack of which could prove detrimental to the child’s mental and physical state and would end up reflecting on the child’s attitude. The paper has hence, by citing cases and article sources enunciated on the legal standing of the live-in relationships and threw special emphasis on the inheritance rights of partners and the child born. The research paper has possible errors due to the researcher’s maiden research skills but potentially prove to be useful and invoke knowledge to the reader.
References:
[1] Mohabat Ali vs. Mohammed Ibrahim Khan ILR (1929) 10 Lah 725 (India).
[2] Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 2522. (India).
[3] Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha SLP (Civil) No. 15071/2009 MANU/SC/0807/2010, (S.C. Oct. 7, 2010) (India).
[4] Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 125
[5]Marvin vs. Marvin 18 Cal.3d 660 (1976) (The United States of America).
[6] Vidhyadhari MANU/SC/0629/2008.(India).
[7] Lawrence W. Waggoner et al., Family Property Law: Cases and Materials on Wills, Trusts, and Future Interests 107 (2d ed. 1997)
[8] D Veluchamy vs Patchaimmal Crl. Appl. No. 2028-2029/2010 MANU/SC/0872/2010, (S.C. Oct. 21, 2010). (India).
[9]SPS Balasubramanyam vs sruttayan AIR 1992 SCC 756 (India).
[10]bharatha matha vs vijaya raghavan .AIR 2010 SC 2685 (India).
[11]Revanasiddappa and Anr. vs. Mallikarjun and Ors. MANU/SCOR/35318/2015 (India).
[12] Githa Hariharan vs. Reserve Bank of India (1992) 2 SCC 228 (India).
0 Comments