Live-in relationships can’t be just about sex
The Supreme Court ruled that if a man has a live-in relationship with a woman only for sexual reasons, it cannot entitle the partner to the benefits of marriage.
The court said, “If a man has a keep whom he maintains financially, and uses mainly for sexual purpose and as a servant, it would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage.”
SC comments were based on the case of a couple who lived together for 14 years before their relationship ended.
The apex court said it will have to determine whether the woman was a mistress or the equivalent of a wife.
“No doubt because of this view many women who have had live-in relationship would be excluded from the benefit of the provisions the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, which talks about relationship in the nature of marriage,” the Court added.