Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur High Court Rules Live-in Partners Eligible for Alimony

Bhopal- In a significant decision, the Jabalpur High Court bench in Madhya Pradesh has ruled in favour of a female live-in partner, stating that she is entitled to alimony if the relationship ends. The court rejected a petition challenging the District Court's decision and upheld the woman's right to alimony for her time spent in the relationship.

The case involved a man from Balaghat, who had been in a live-in relationship with a woman for several years, resulting in a child. When they separated, the woman filed for alimony in the Balaghat District Court, arguing that they lived as husband and wife, and she deserved financial support.

Shailesh Kumar, a resident of Balaghat, was in a long-term live-in relationship with a woman, resulting in the birth of their child. Upon their separation, the woman lodged a complaint with the Balaghat police, alleging that Shailesh had misled her with false promises of marriage. Subsequently, she filed for alimony in the Balaghat District Court, citing their shared life as grounds for financial support.

When the Balaghat District Court ruled in favour of the woman, Shailesh contested the decision in the High Court. His lawyer argued that although the woman claimed they were married in a temple and lived as spouses, she failed to provide evidence of their marriage. Nevertheless, the High Court upheld the woman's right to alimony, citing the existence of their child as sufficient proof of their domestic relationship.

Justice GS Ahluwalia of the High Court dismissed Shailesh's petition, affirming the District Court's decision to grant alimony to the woman. This ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court acknowledges women's rights in live-in relationships, emphasizing that post-breakup, women are entitled to financial support regardless of the legal validity of their marriage.

While cases concerning women's rights in live-in relationships are ongoing across the country, this decision sets a precedent by prioritizing the welfare of women in such unions. It emphasizes the court's stance that women deserve alimony even in the absence of legal proof of marriage.