Latest -Live-in relationships end when either party decides to leave, says Madras High Court

The Madras High Court states that a live-in relationship ends when one of the parties decides to move out.

Palak June 19, 2024

236 2 minutes read

Live-in relationships end when either party decides to leave, says Madras High Court

Table of Contents Hide

1 Live-in relationships end when either party decides to leave, says Madras High Court

1.1 Unofficial relationship:

The said ruling has been handed down by Justice R M T Teekaa Raman recently whereas the appeal has been filed by P Jayachandran from Nagavedu, Ranipet setting aside the judgment and decree of a trial court. The judge pointed out, “Relationship of marriage still subsists even though the couple has different opinions, marital disturbance, etc., even though they do not live together because it is based on law But live-in-relationship is a private arrangement between the two parties If one of the parties decides that he or she no longer wishes to continue the relationship then it ceases to exist.”

The appellant was Jayachandran a teacher in a school, and he was married to Stella and the couple had five children. He started living in with Margarette Arulmozhi, who was then serving as the headmaster of a panchayat union middle aid school. He executed a settlement deed of a low income group plot in the name of Arulmozhi in 2010, wherein the Low Income Group(LIG) plot belonged to him to her as an expression of love and affection. However, it ‘unilaterally’ cancelled the settlement deed in the same year 2013 after the death of wife by him.

Arulmozhi’s father A Yesurathinam instituted a civil plaint in 2013 under the Second Additional Sessions Court, Ranipet, seeking the court to declare that the property solely belongs to him as the legal next of kin of the deceased.

Unofficial relationship:

HC In 2016, the court ruled in Yesurathinam’s favor, concluding that Jayachandran and Arulmozhi’s live-in relationship had not been “converted into a legitimate marriage” since neither of them had legally formalized their relationship and Jayachandran had not divorced Stella. Enraged, Jayachandran filed an appeal, claiming that he was getting the family pension following Arulmozhi’s death and that she had nominated him for her special provident fund cum gratuity. The unilateral revocation of the settlement deed is “impermissible” under the law, according to Justice Teekaa Raman, who refuted the accusations, stating that the nomination in service records is only made in order to get terminal benefits.

He dismissed the appellant’s assertion that he sent Stella ‘courier customary divorce’. The court held that before a couple who regarded themselves as Christians could be divorced, there were certain grounds that had to be provided for as spelled under the Indian Divorce Act. The judge said it was not a marriage and she was a mistress and even a prostitute of sorts, a concubine.
The judge stated that as Yesurathinam passed away two of the parties from his side are eligible to the property.

Like this post?
Register at One World News to never miss out on videos, celeb interviews, and best reads.