Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that allows for a financial settlement to be made to a live-in partner of the opposite sex under specified circumstances is a development of far-reaching impact. It has been criticised by some women activists, but its innovative nature and the social effect it might produce even in the short and medium term is hard to overlook. The notion of something akin to alimony to be paid to a regular live-in partner in the event of a breakup can be traced to the social upheavals in America some 50 years ago. The revolutionising of social mores in the United States in the 1960s, and in the West more generally, radicalised the understanding of the institution of marriage in key respects, and raised questions that had never been asked at the common level before. It also allowed for the developing and evolution of what is today known as live-in relationships. These came to be regarded as being as “normal” as being in wedlock. The underlying overhaul of sexual mores and the wide social acceptance of these new attitudes could not but have their impact on the judicial system, especially in America. Thus, although in slow stages, came into the picture the notion of “palimony”, the financial settlement to be made to a “pal”, a live-in friend over a recognisable length of time, in the event of partners moving away. Even in this liberated setting, however, the law continued to recognise a difference between a marriage and a live-in-relationship, clearly according the former higher status. The most celebrated case was that of Hollywood actor Lee Marvin and his live-in partner of seven years, Michelle Triola. In 1979, a US court refused Triola’s plea for “palimony” (it is from this case that the word came into currency: while alimony payments were the norm, “palimony” had to be fought for) on the ground that the live-in relationship did not commence with a contract. (Such insistence is not relevant to marriages.)
Broadly, this is the key parameter that guides judicial action in the West. However, it is not usually required in the West that live-in partners be single. Changes in social values are also proceeding in the direction of awarding palimony to same-sex live-in partners. Our recent Supreme Court ruling certainly marks a departure, but it differs from the US concept of “palimony” in that it permits a financial award to a live-in partner on separation only if the marital status of both parties is “single”. Also, gay live-in partnerships are not recognised as such. The court’s ruling is likely to be viewed as being libertarian by many in India, and not just orthodox sections. It could be argued that it will encourage “sinful” cohabitation and detract from the notion of matrimony. Religious points might also be made. This group is likely to be bolstered by the fact that there are no statistics that tell us how common live-in relationships actually are in this country (while there is a plethora of data in the West), and whether judicial pronouncements are being made when there is no properly established social demand. Many progressive elements, particularly women, are likely to be critical as the verdict does not extend the notion of “palimony” to all women regardless of the length of their live-in status and regardless of whether the male partner is already married or not.
These are all very interesting issues which attest to the fact that significant sociological change in India has occurred over a relatively short time, and that the new and the old exist with vociferous support bases of their own. An issue that will perhaps need to be resolved is whether “palimony” is to be paid only by men to women. In the West, the disbursement can be either way, depending on which party brings in the meat.