The Supreme Court, which found the provisions of the new Domestic Violence Act grossly “inadequate” to deal with the problems of women in “live-in” relationships, relied heavily on the case of famous Hollywood actor Lee Marvin which had laid the foundation for grant of maintenance to women in such liaisons all over the world.
The top court found that the expression “domestic relationship in the nature of marriage” referred to in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 was “vague” as the legislation “unfortunately” has not defined it with proper elaboration; nor did it find any Indian court decision of any help.
“Therefore, we think it necessary to interpret it because a large number of cases will be coming up before the courts in our country on this point,” said Justice Markandey Katju, who authored the verdict. In the process he picked up the California superior court’s 1976 decision in the Lee Marvin case, considered the benchmark for defining “live-in” relationships and granting “palimony” to a woman in the US.
Michelle Triola (who legally changed her name to Marvin), who lived with Lee Marvin for several years without marrying him, had sued him after he deserted her. The California court, in its historic decision in the Marvin v. Marvin case, allowed her plea and thus laid the foundation for upholding the legal right of women in “live-in” relationships.
The judiciary in the US strengthened their rights further in several subsequent verdicts as countries like India did not have laws to deal with the issue, especially when the women were lured into such relationships for “sexual gratification” by men.
In the Marvin case the court laid that “if a man and woman have lived together for a substantially long period without getting married, there would be a deemed and implied or constructive contract (between them) that palimony will be given on their separation.”
But a significant change in the judiciary-laid laws on the issue was brought in the Devaney case by the New Jersey supreme court as recently as 2008. It laid down that even “cohabitation” by “live-in” partners was not necessary to claim “palimony” as it was “rather the promise to support, expressed or implied (by the man) in a marital-type of relationship, that are indispensable elements to support a valid claim for palimony.”
The Supreme Court also relied on the judicial pronouncements of several European countries, which recognised such a relationship under “common law marriages” even though there was no formal marriage between the partners.
Though the apex court also referred to three Indian cases — Tamil actress Khushboo’s case on her live-in relationship comments (2010), Savitaben Somabhat Bhatia of Gujarat (2005) and Vimla v. Veeraswamy case (1991) — but found them of little help.