The Madras High Court recently ruled that a live-in relationship is not legitimate if one of the partners is already married.
In an order issued on June 7, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman stated that two adults living together, when one is already married to someone else, cannot claim any succession or inheritance rights to the property of their alleged live-in partner.
The Court also criticized the practice of couples in extramarital relationships referring to their relationship as a “live-in” relationship.
“The situation may be different if both individuals are unmarried and choose to live together as adults. However, it has been observed that adults involved in extramarital relationships are increasingly labeling them as ‘live-in’ relationships, which is a misnomer and should be condemned,” the High Court said.
This ruling came while hearing an appeal filed by P Jayachandran challenging a trial court’s order.
Jayachandran and Margarette Arulmozhi were living together without being married. Jayachandran was already married to another woman, with whom he had five children. Although he and his wife were estranged, they were not legally divorced. During this period, Jayachandran and Arulmozhi bought a house, which they registered in Arulmozhi’s name through a settlement deed.
After Arulmozhi died in 2013, Jayachandran unilaterally canceled the settlement deed to reclaim the house. However, Arulmozhi’s father claimed his late daughter’s property, and the trial court sided with him.
Jayachandran then appealed to the High Court, arguing that his relationship with Arulmozhi, though not legally married, should entitle him to her property.
Justice Teekaa Raman ruled that without a valid divorce from his wife, Jayachandran’s “alleged live-in relationship” with Arulmozhi could not be granted the legal status of a marriage.
“In this case, the appellant knowingly entered into a live-in relationship with Arulmozhi (now deceased) while still married with five children. The presumption of living together as husband and wife does not apply here. Thus, the relationship between the appellant and Arulmozhi was not akin to a marriage, and Arulmozhi’s status was that of a concubine. A ‘concubine’ cannot maintain a relationship in the ‘nature of marriage,’ as such a relationship lacks exclusivity and monogamy,” the High Court held.
The court upheld the trial court’s decision. Since Arulmozhi’s father died during the proceedings, the High Court ruled that his other legal heirs were entitled to the property.
Advocate C Shankar represented Jayachandran, while Advocate G Jeremiah represented the legal heirs of Arulmozhi’s father.
