High Court Order: The Madras High Court recently heard a case. In which the court said that the live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman is not of the “nature of marriage”, which gives rights to the parties. During this, the High Court said that in the absence of any law, the live-in partner cannot seek succession or inheritance of the property of the other party.
Justice RMT Teeka Raman refused to grant relief to a man who had entered into a live-in relationship with a woman despite being married. In this case, the court said that for a relationship of the nature of marriage, it is necessary that the young men present themselves as husband and wife in the society and are eligible to marry. During the hearing of the case, the court said that since the marriage of the man and his wife still existed at the time of the live-in relationship, the live-in relationship cannot be treated as marriage.
What is the matter?
Actually, the Madras High Court was hearing the appeal of petitioner Jayachandran, who was in a live-in relationship with Margaret Arulmozhi. During this time, Jayachandran was married to a woman named Stella and he also had 5 children from this marriage. Jayachandran had prepared an agreement letter in favor of Margaret, which was unilaterally canceled after Margaret’s death.
At the same time, the case was related to the possession of the property which Arulmozhi had settled in the name of Margaret. The trial court found that since the marriage of Jayachandran and Margaret was not converted into a valid marriage, Margaret’s father, the defendant Yesuranthinam, was entitled to the order of ownership. Thus the court directed to give possession of the property to Jayachandran. After this, Jayachandran filed an appeal against this decision of the trial court.
Appeal filed in HC against the decision of the trial court
On appeal, petitioner Jayachandran argued that he had divorced his first wife Stella through traditional means, after which he started a relationship with Margaret. He also pointed out that he had executed a settlement deed in favour of Margaret for her protection.
He argued that the trial court did not notice that Margaret had named Jayachandran as her husband in her service record for pension and other service benefits. Jayachandran said that after Margaret’s death, he should have been treated as her husband and the trial court had erred in treating him only as a surviving relative.
The relationship of the petitioner is not legally valid- HC
The High Court said that while the Hindu Marriage Act recognised the caste system, the Indian Divorce Act did not recognise any such system or any customary form of divorce. The High Court thus held that in the absence of recognition of any customary form of divorce, it could not accept Jayachandran’s plea that he had divorced his wife Stella in the customary manner.
The court said that in the absence of any proof of divorce, the relationship between Jayachandran and Margaret cannot be legally classified as that of husband and wife. The court also argued that the principle of monogamy is recognised in the Indian Christian Marriage Act, according to which, their first marriage existed.
HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision
Meanwhile, the Madras High Court said that this does not mean that Jayachandran is the legal heir. Considering that such nomination is only a self-declaration, the court held that due to such details alone, Margaret cannot be called the legally married wife of Jayachandran. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot demand succession or inheritance of the property in the absence of law and the High Court upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
read this also: ‘If a cheater becomes a doctor then…’, Supreme Court’s important comment on NEET paper leak case