Compensation for live-ins if man refuses to marry? | India News
NEW DELHI: In an essential choice to guard the pursuits of ladies in live-in relationships and deceived to get into consensual sexual relations on the pretext of marriage, the Supreme Court docket on Monday determined to look at whether or not civil legal responsibility might be fastened on a person to pay compensation to such a lady for reneging on the promise after residing collectively.
A bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Abdul Nazeer mentioned provisions for fixing legal responsibility need to be thought of to make sure that a lady doesn’t stay remedyless after prison offence of rape is just not made out due to consensual relationship. It mentioned such relationship could also be handled as de facto marriage to repair legal responsibility on a person.
Contemplating the significance of the difficulty, the bench appointed senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi to help the courtroom as amicus curiae to adjudicate the difficulty and it additionally issued discover to the lawyer common whereas requesting him to depute a further solicitor common to help the courtroom within the case.
The courtroom handed the order whereas listening to the plea of a person for quashing of prison proceedings towards him on a rape criticism filed by the mom of a lady with whom he had lived for six years, allegedly on the pretext of marrying her however refused to tie the knot.
“In the course of the course of the listening to, one of many questions which has been taken up for consideration whether or not, on account of lengthy cohabitation, even when the connection is held to be consensual and the petitioner is just not held chargeable for the offence alleged, the petitioner might be fixed the civil legal responsibility treating the connection to be de facto marriage in view of lengthy cohabitation. This interpretation could need to be thought of so woman is just not subjected to any exploitation and isn’t rendered remedyless even when a prison offence is just not made out,” the bench mentioned in its order.
The mom of the woman had levelled rape costs towards the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had promised to marry her however backed out.