Cohabitation Of Barely 3 Months Insufficient To Trigger Presumption Of Live-In Relationship For Maintenance: Bombay High Court

"It is impossible to hold that Petitioner can qualify for a person in live-in-relationship, where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a mere cohabitation period of three months cannot trigger the presumption of a live-in relationship akin to marriage for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A single-judge bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye observed that for a woman to claim maintenance under the expansive interpretation of a live-in relationship, the parties must have lived together for a considerable length of time.

The petitioner-woman approached the High Court challenging a revisional court order that denied her maintenance while upholding the maintenance granted to her child. The respondent-husband had successfully obtained an annulment of their marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after discovering that the woman had a subsisting prior marriage which she had deliberately concealed. Following the annulment, the woman attempted to claim maintenance by arguing that her relationship should be treated as a live-in relationship, relying on expansive judicial interpretations of Section 125 of the CrPC.

The primary question before the court was whether a woman can claim maintenance by characterizing her annulled, void marriage as a live-in relationship when the cohabitation lasted for barely three months. The court was also called upon to determine whether a party guilty of concealing a prior subsisting marriage can seek equitable relief under the beneficial provisions of the CrPC.

Statutory Definition Of Wife Strictly Applies

At the outset, the court noted that the petitioner was not a legally wedded wife, as her marriage was annulled by a competent court for contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench relied on the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, which established that the term 'wife' in Section 125(1) of the CrPC means strictly a legally wedded wife. The court reiterated that a woman whose second marriage is null and void due to a surviving first marriage is not entitled to maintenance under this specific provision.

Reasonable Length Of Time Essential For Live-In Presumption

Addressing the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, the High Court clarified the pre-requisites for presuming a live-in relationship. The bench observed that while broad interpretations have been given to include relationships where a man and woman live together as husband and wife, such cohabitation must be for a "reasonably long period of time." The court scrutinized the case timeline and noted that the petitioner and respondent cohabited only from January 28, 2009, to May 7, 2009.

Cohabitation Of A Few Months Fails The Threshold

The court emphasized that a cohabitation period of just over three months is starkly insufficient to attract the legal protections afforded to long-term live-in relationships. The bench firmly stated that under such fleeting circumstances, the expansive judicial protections meant for long-term partners cannot be invoked. To reinforce this legal threshold, the court cited the Supreme Court decision in Kamala and Ors. vs. M. R. Mohan Kumar (2019), which held that the presumption of marriage for maintenance entitlement can only be drawn when a man and woman have lived together for a "considerable length of time."

"The concealment and deceit vitiates the case of the Petitioner No.1. In my considered view, provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C which are enacted with a view to provide summary remedy to neglected wife, can not be exercised in favour of Petitioner No. 1 who has acted deceitfully."

Deceit Disentitles Party From Equitable Relief

The High Court heavily weighed the petitioner's conduct, specifically the concealment of her first marriage from the respondent. Distinguishing the case from Smt. N. Usha Rani vs. Moodudula Srinivas, where the second husband was fully aware of the first marriage, Justice Sathaye noted that the present matter involved a clear element of deceit. The court observed that Section 125 of the CrPC is a beneficial and secular piece of legislation, but a party cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong to extract benefits.

False Representation Vitiates Maintenance Claims

Drawing support from the Supreme Court's reasoning in Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse, the High Court noted that false representation by a party to a marriage inherently taints their claim for equitable relief. The bench reasoned that providing a summary remedy to a neglected wife under Section 125 cannot be extended to someone who entered the relationship through deliberate suppression of material facts. The court found no perversity in the lower court's decision to reject the woman's claim while maintaining the respondent's undisputed liability to pay for the child.

The Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The ruling firmly establishes that fleeting cohabitation coupled with marital deceit completely disentitles a claimant from seeking maintenance under the guise of a presumed live-in relationship.

Date of Decision: 16 July 2026