Live-in couple splits. Is man liable to pay for kid’s upkeep?

  Mar 25, 2010,
 
NEW DELHI: After throwing its weight behind live-in relationships saying there is no illegality if two adults live together, the Supreme Court is facing a difficult emotional fallout of it.

What if two adults decide to live together in a foreign country, share an apartment and have a child and when they come back, the man goes away saying he had no formal relationship with the woman and hence was not liable to her and the child’s maintenance?

This question has cropped up before the Supreme Court, which has stayed proceedings initiated by a woman under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code in Gujarat. But realising the sensitivity of the issues involved, it posted the case for hearing on May 7.

The case is between Japmandeep and Rajshri. He went to London on a student visa in March 2003 to do post-graduation in information technology from London College of Management and IT. There he met Rajshri, who was pursuing her masters in IT since October 2002. According to Japmandeep, “they became friends and in October 2003 started sharing the same apartment”.

“We shared an apartment in UK, but no religious ceremony for performing marriage took place in London nor did we register any civil partnership as is required under the law of UK. As per UK law, no relationship between the parties exist unless the formalities required under the law of UK are complied with,” Japmandeep said in his petition before the SC seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by his erstwhile live-in partner.

But there was not a word by the man that a child was born to them in 2005 in UK. After staying the proceedings, the SC issued notice to Rajshri, who in her response submitted documents, including the birth certificate of the child from UK.

The birth certificate showed that the child was born to Japmandeep Singh Ahluwalia and Rajshri Ahluwalia on November 9, 2005, at Wexham Park Hospital, Slough. A copy of the passport annexed to the reply filed in the SC through lawyer H A Raichura also gave identical description of the child’s parents.

To falsify Rajshri’s claim that she was married to him, Japmandeep stated in his petition filed through counsel J S Chhabra that she on October 10, 2006, had made a complaint about domestic violence and rape against him to UK authorities. “However, on December 8, 2006, the complainant withdrew all the allegations levelled against him and signed a statutory declaration in the form of an affidavit before the oath commissioner in England that all the allegations regarding domestic violence, rape and dowry were false and untrue,” Japmandeep said.

But after they reached India on August 29, 2008, Rajshri left for her home in Gujarat and Japmandeep went to Patiala, where his parents lived. “All the communication which have taken place in the year 2008, between Rajshri and Department of Home Office, UK, she was addressed as Rajshri Ben Vijay Kumar Kesri and Japmandeep was addressed as her partner and not her husband,” he said in his defence.

Rajshri initiated proceedings under Section 498A at Patiala and Ahmedabad, and both have been stayed by higher courts — one by Punjab and Haryana HC and the other by SC. However, Rajshri in her response to the apex court expressed willingness to compromise with Japmandeep allowing him to contract fresh marriage provided he returns the money, ornaments and certificates he owed to her, the 4-year-old son remains with her and pays a lumpsum amount to her for maintenance.