Live-in relationship not valid if one of the partners is married: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that a live-in relationship is not legitimate when one of the partners is already in a matrimonial relationship..In an order passed on June 7, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman further said that two adults living together when one of them was already married to someone else, cannot claim any succession or inheritance rights to the property of their alleged live-in partner.The Court also said that couples in extra marital relationships calling their relationship as “live-in” must be deprecated..“The position may be different if the two persons are unmarried and the parties being adults choose to lead their lives in a way of their own. This Court has noted that, of late, adults who indulge in extramarital relationship are labelling it as “live-in” relationship, which is misnomer and it is to be deprecated,” the High Court said..The Court passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by one P Jayachandran challenging the order of a trial court.Jayachandran and one Margarette Arulmozhi were living together without any marriage. Jayachandran was already married to another woman and the couple had five children. While they did not maintain any relationship, they were not divorced as per law. During this time, Jayachandran and Arulmozhi bought a house and they got it registered in Arulmozhi’s name by executing a settlement deed in her favour. In 2013, when Arulmozhi died, Jayachandran unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed and sought to get the house back in his name alone. However, Arulmozhi’s father laid claim to his late daughter’s property and the trial court agreed..Jayachandran then approached the High Court. His counsel told the Court that he and Arulmozhi were living together like husband and wife even though they were not legally married and therefore, he should have a right to her property after her death.Justice Teekaa Raman however, held that in the absence of a valid divorce between Jayachandran and his wife, his “alleged live in relationship” with Arulmozhi could not be granted the “legal status of the husband and wife.”.“Coming to the case in hand, the status of the appellant in this case is that admittedly he entered into a live-in relationship with Arulmozhi (now deceased) knowing that he is a married man with wife and five children. 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 High Court held.It upheld the trial court’s order but since Arulmozhi’s father died pending hearing, the High Court said that the late father’s other legal heirs were entitled to the property..Advocate C Shankar appeared for Jayachandran.Advocate G Jeremiah appeared for the legal heirs of Arulmozhi's father..[Read Order]