Derived from the word alimony itself, Palimony is the provision for providing maintenance on separation to the partners who lived together in a live-in relationship although the existence of a genuine relationship is imperative, and not the one in which either of a partner is married to another person. The relationship needs to be “in the nature of marriage” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act to be applicable for Palimony.
In India, the concept of palimony is not recognized under any specific law or statute although, the Indian legal system recognizes the right of a woman in a live-in relationship to claim maintenance and financial support from her partner under certain given circumstances. The right to claim maintenance is based on the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience, and it is available to all women, including those in live-in relationships. The legal status of live-in relationships in India is somewhat ambiguous, as there is no clear definition of such relationships under Indian law.
It was in 2010 that the Indian Supreme Court in the landmark case of Velusamy v. Patchaiammal , recognized the right to �Palimony� to be awarded in live-in relationships and termed it equivalent to the alimony.
In the Velusamy case, the plaintiff, a woman, claimed that she had been in a live-in relationship with the defendant for several years and that he had promised to marry her. However, the defendant denied the existence of any such relationship and refused to provide her with any financial support.
The Supreme Court held that if a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a significant period of time and have held themselves out to the world as being in a relationship akin to marriage, they would be presumed to be in a valid marriage-like relationship. In such cases, the woman would be entitled to claim financial support from the man if the relationship breaks down if she meets the set criteria.The relevant paragraph in context of the same is as follows:
However, the Supreme Court of India has held that a woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance if she meets certain criteria. The relevant paragraph in context of the same is as follows:
“31. In our opinion a “relationship in the nature of marriage” is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married:
- The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
- They must be of legal age to marry.
- They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
- They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
In our opinion a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the 2005 Act must also fulfil the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a “shared household” as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a “domestic relationship”.”
33. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” and not “live-in relationship”. The Court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute.
If a woman in a live-in relationship can prove that her relationship meets the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court, she can claim maintenance from her partner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or under the Section 20(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). Section 125 of the CrPC allows a wife, child, or parents to claim maintenance from a man who neglects or refuses to maintain them. The scope of Section 125 has been expanded to include women in live-in relationships who are unable to maintain themselves.
Further, to clear the ambiguity and provide certain clarity on the issue, the Hon�ble Supreme Court has also laid down guidelines which shall help govern whether a particular relationship falls under the ambit of “relationship in the nature of marriage” or not.
However, it is important to note that the concept of palimony is still not recognized under Indian law as a separate legal right. The Supreme Court in the Velusamy case only provided a remedy to partners in a live-in relationship under the framework of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provides for the protection of women in domestic relationships.
In conclusion, while the Velusamy case has provided some legal recognition to the rights of partners in live-in relationships in India, there is still a long way to go in terms of developing a comprehensive legal framework to protect the rights of such partners.
