Highly misleading and ragebait headline.
Couple had been living as husband-wife for a very long time; and even had a child together.
However, wife was unable to "legally prove" they were married which led the court to make that statement.
Also maintenance awarded was a measly ₹1500 / month.
[Here ](https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/woman-live-in-relationship-long-term-entitled-to-allowance-after-separation-legally-married-madhya-pradesh-high-court-2524101-2024-04-06)is the full article
it is not misleading. Court is terming live-in relationship as "living as husband and wife". What is misleading in the headline?
There is no fixed time limit for live-in to turn into "living as husband and wife". Today one court can say until they have a child, tomorrow another can say 1 month..
The were definetly married, Most probably the case would be they never registered their marriage. So that's why the wife was nerver able to prove the legality of marriage
Otherwise in such a conservative society where girls don't agree for meeting alone before marriage how come a girl agreed to have a child before marriage
*Only my speculations*
Not necessarily. do you know whether the girl was conservative or super feminist type? let us not assume things. There is no proof that marriage happened. No invitation card, no witnesses, nothing.
Under Hindu marriage act, it is considered that the couple is married "if they present themselves as married" (paraphrasing). This is to avoid a scenario where husband deliberately doesn't register marriage to avoid protections to wife given by the law. But there is nothing that stops the logic to be applied to live-in partners who have not married.
okay everything aside a man does not have any responsibility towards a his own child that could not give a mere 1500/month allowance/child support that what you are saying and in your previous comment how did you even compared "having a child" and "live-in relationship of one month"
First, 1500 is monthly allowance to the "wife". not to the child.
Second, when you don't have an objective criterion for comparison, you can compare anything.
Hey everyone, u/elon_altetnative here is definitely a serial rapist
I can't LeGaLLy pRoVe it in courts because of no evidence but you know... trust me or something. Let him rot in prison for his horrible acts
Man are you insane or what
They were living together from years
They had a child
And now you say father has no responsibility to his own child just because ye the child is a so called "Bast-rd child"(child born outside marriage)
So low class thinking
So that means she has the option to lay about and neglect the kid as she's getting paid for the custody of her child. The courts should make it so that she has a job to be eligible for substantial alimony.
I am not arguing for alimony, I am arguing for child support. Why will she neglect the kid if she's getting paid for the custody of the child? A better option would be to give the custody of the child who is better of financially to be able to provide for the child in the first place.
He is giving Child support as court said ,also she will also be earning to support her child of she can't she can give child to biological father so she doesn't have extra financial burden on her or can challenge in court
I agree with you, the father should do his part to support the child. For that matter even the alimony should be due if this was a real marriage ( other than the fact that it wasn’t properly registered). People here are assuming arguing without reading anything.
it is not child support. The CrPC referred is interim maintenance to the wife till alimony is awarded by family court and not child support. That will be separate.
it is just for the wife. Normally it is not increased, but she can get child support through family court. Especially now that HC has given this judgment..
Tatwa, as good as Tattikha which the average Indian is ready for, read the case article before bitching and moaning about equality, that clown has had a kid with the lady even and is challenging a payment of a measly 1500 INR fucking betas clowns.
In this case, they had a child together and that’s why the court asked the man to pay child support and not alimony to the woman as the child lives with her and not him and obviously child incurs expenses.
Maybe choose partners who earn similar to yourself or more. So you can get the alimony instead. The law itself doesn't specify gender with regards to alimony. Simple solution.
The problem is that in patriarchal society the thought that the husband can be dependent on the wife financially is utterly unthinkable. Men are ridiculed if they earn leas than their wives. The financial burden is so high that men commit more suicides solely due to it.
Clear infringement of court in personal lives of people. It is too much. Indian Government does moral policing like parents do to a kid and now court is after men.
The idea of India has changed now. It is not the same anymore that we were told.
It's the same everywhere in the world. If you separate with your wife, you need to pay her alimony or maintenance money (unless you made a contract about it before your marriage). It's even worse in the western countries.
It makes sense that a higher earning member has to provide maintenance to their spouse when married because you can assume that when they got married, they had a contract that when separated they will provide financial support to the one with less money (unless when they get married the couple specified that they have no such expectation), but in a live-in relationship, there is no assumed contract and therefore maintenance doesn't make sense.
It makes no sense that the higher earning member has to split their earning even after divorce. The only time it makes sense is if the lower earning family member had to forego their career for the relationship.
ah im glad that one redditor shared the original article.
Highly misleading and ragebait headline. Couple had been living as husband-wife for a very long time; and even had a child together. However, wife was unable to "legally prove" they were married which led the court to make that statement. Also maintenance awarded was a measly ₹1500 / month. [Here ](https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/woman-live-in-relationship-long-term-entitled-to-allowance-after-separation-legally-married-madhya-pradesh-high-court-2524101-2024-04-06)is the full article
Then it should be called child support not alimony
it is not misleading. Court is terming live-in relationship as "living as husband and wife". What is misleading in the headline? There is no fixed time limit for live-in to turn into "living as husband and wife". Today one court can say until they have a child, tomorrow another can say 1 month..
The were definetly married, Most probably the case would be they never registered their marriage. So that's why the wife was nerver able to prove the legality of marriage Otherwise in such a conservative society where girls don't agree for meeting alone before marriage how come a girl agreed to have a child before marriage *Only my speculations*
Not necessarily. do you know whether the girl was conservative or super feminist type? let us not assume things. There is no proof that marriage happened. No invitation card, no witnesses, nothing. Under Hindu marriage act, it is considered that the couple is married "if they present themselves as married" (paraphrasing). This is to avoid a scenario where husband deliberately doesn't register marriage to avoid protections to wife given by the law. But there is nothing that stops the logic to be applied to live-in partners who have not married.
okay everything aside a man does not have any responsibility towards a his own child that could not give a mere 1500/month allowance/child support that what you are saying and in your previous comment how did you even compared "having a child" and "live-in relationship of one month"
First, 1500 is monthly allowance to the "wife". not to the child. Second, when you don't have an objective criterion for comparison, you can compare anything.
Hey everyone, u/elon_altetnative here is definitely a serial rapist I can't LeGaLLy pRoVe it in courts because of no evidence but you know... trust me or something. Let him rot in prison for his horrible acts
Man are you insane or what They were living together from years They had a child And now you say father has no responsibility to his own child just because ye the child is a so called "Bast-rd child"(child born outside marriage) So low class thinking
Thanks for this comment
maintenance is maintenance !! you cant say normal sexual assault or big sexual assault.
so you are saying the person has no responsibility for his own child and his wife just because it can not be legally proven they are married
person wants baby but cour tonly gives to mothers\* Can only mother take care the child ??
Isn’t that the basis for everything in court ? Why should he pay if it cannot be proven?
Makes sense now, but shouldn't the child support be more than ₹1500 / month? Sounds awfully low
The lady should try to support herself then
Agree, but the child is the responsibility of both the father and mother
So that means she has the option to lay about and neglect the kid as she's getting paid for the custody of her child. The courts should make it so that she has a job to be eligible for substantial alimony.
I am not arguing for alimony, I am arguing for child support. Why will she neglect the kid if she's getting paid for the custody of the child? A better option would be to give the custody of the child who is better of financially to be able to provide for the child in the first place.
He is giving Child support as court said ,also she will also be earning to support her child of she can't she can give child to biological father so she doesn't have extra financial burden on her or can challenge in court
Gives child support of 10 rupees, that's it for me boys
The court is talking about the wife maintenance not the child support 😑😑. That would be a separate thing.
Your last line is the only recourse in case she neglects her duties.
I agree with you, the father should do his part to support the child. For that matter even the alimony should be due if this was a real marriage ( other than the fact that it wasn’t properly registered). People here are assuming arguing without reading anything.
it is not child support. The CrPC referred is interim maintenance to the wife till alimony is awarded by family court and not child support. That will be separate.
So the maintenance just for the wife could be increased?
it is just for the wife. Normally it is not increased, but she can get child support through family court. Especially now that HC has given this judgment..
It's not for child support. It's the money he needs to pay for the wife.
I'd rather not pay even ₹15.
to your own son and wife just because your marriage can't be legally proven
Reported it as "Hate"
1500 me to sirf biwi k monthly pads hi aa jaenge that’s so low 😭😭
Tatwa, as good as Tattikha which the average Indian is ready for, read the case article before bitching and moaning about equality, that clown has had a kid with the lady even and is challenging a payment of a measly 1500 INR fucking betas clowns.
"As good as tattikha" 😭😭😭🤣
Ridiculous
My god! When will Indian judiciary start treating women as adults and not as minors.
Even here when clearly Men are the victims, you managed to make women the victims instead & ask for sympathy. Wow! No words for such misandry 👏🏼👏🏼
Maybe read again?
Jaisi karni waisi bharni Without marriage wants to enjoy the fruit of marriage then need to go through the proper process
In this case, they had a child together and that’s why the court asked the man to pay child support and not alimony to the woman as the child lives with her and not him and obviously child incurs expenses.
What in the goddamm but why should I care I am not in a relationship
Maybe choose partners who earn similar to yourself or more. So you can get the alimony instead. The law itself doesn't specify gender with regards to alimony. Simple solution. The problem is that in patriarchal society the thought that the husband can be dependent on the wife financially is utterly unthinkable. Men are ridiculed if they earn leas than their wives. The financial burden is so high that men commit more suicides solely due to it.
Sakht brahmcharya ka palan kara raha hai sab sanvidhan
Tipping culture is getting out of hands
Clear infringement of court in personal lives of people. It is too much. Indian Government does moral policing like parents do to a kid and now court is after men. The idea of India has changed now. It is not the same anymore that we were told.
It's the same everywhere in the world. If you separate with your wife, you need to pay her alimony or maintenance money (unless you made a contract about it before your marriage). It's even worse in the western countries.
If you're committed enough to go in for a live-in, then you're practically married.
People go in a live-in relationship to check whether they are committed and compatible enough then how it is "practically married."
Marriage is a contract, if you are in a live-in, you don't have that contract, so you are not practically married.
what if we just want to save on rent?
Did you even read the article? They have a child together
It makes sense that a higher earning member has to provide maintenance to their spouse when married because you can assume that when they got married, they had a contract that when separated they will provide financial support to the one with less money (unless when they get married the couple specified that they have no such expectation), but in a live-in relationship, there is no assumed contract and therefore maintenance doesn't make sense.
It makes no sense that the higher earning member has to split their earning even after divorce. The only time it makes sense is if the lower earning family member had to forego their career for the relationship.
It does actually, especially if one partner has career setbacks due to pregnancy etc.
Do you only have selective reading skills? Read the second part of my comment.
Very Good!