The Madras High Court recently declared that a cohabiting arrangement between a married man and an unmarried woman does not meet the criteria for a relationship “akin to marriage,” thus denying them any marital entitlements. The court stressed the absence of legal provisions that would confer succession or inheritance rights to a live-in partner.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman declined relief to a man involved in a live-in relationship while still legally married. The court clarified that for a relationship to be considered similar to marriage, the couple must openly present themselves as spouses, willingly share a residence, meet the legal requirements for marriage, and otherwise qualify to marry. As the man remained married throughout the live-in arrangement, it could not be categorized as a relationship akin to marriage.
“Where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law presumes that they are living together in consequence of a valid marriage will not apply and hence, the relationship between the appellant and Arulmozhi (now deceased) was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage and the status of the said person is that of a concubine. A “concubine” cannot maintain a relationship in the “nature of marriage” because such a relationship will not have exclusivity and will not be monogamous in character and consequently he cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage,” the court observed.
The court reviewed an appeal from Jayachandran, who had a cohabiting relationship with Margarette Arulmozhi while still married to Stella, with whom he had five children. Initially, Jayachandran had executed a settlement deed favoring Margarette, which he later unilaterally revoked following Margarette’s death.
The legal dispute centered on the ownership of a property settled in Margarette’s name by Arulmozhi. The trial court determined that since Jayachandran and Margarette had not formalized their relationship into a valid marriage, Margarette’s father, Yesuranthinam, was entitled to the title decree. Accordingly, the court ordered Jayachandran to relinquish possession of the property. Dissatisfied with this decision, Jayachandran appealed.
In his appeal, Jayachandran argued that he had divorced Stella through customary practices before entering into a relationship with Margarette. He asserted that he had executed the settlement deed to ensure Margarette’s security. Jayachandran further pointed out that the trial court overlooked Margarette’s nomination of him as her spouse in her service records, which included pensionary and other benefits.
He also claimed that upon Margarette’s demise, he should be recognized as her husband, emphasizing that the trial court erred in categorizing their relationship solely as a live-in arrangement.
The court acknowledged that unlike the Hindu Marriage Act, the Indian Divorce Act did not recognize customary divorce practices or caste distinctions. Therefore, lacking proof of a customary divorce, the court could not accept Jayachandran’s claim of having divorced Stella.
Highlighting the principles of monogamy under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, the court confirmed Jayachandran’s existing marriage to Stella. Regarding Jayachandran’s nomination as Margarette’s beneficiary in service records, the court clarified that such nominations were self-declarations and did not confer legal heir status on him.
Consequently, the court affirmed that in the absence of specific legal provisions, a live-in partner like Jayachandran could not assert succession or inheritance rights. Upholding the trial court’s decision, the court dismissed Jayachandran’s appeal.
