MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID)
(a) to (c) The Hon`ble Supreme Court of India while allowing Criminal
Appeal No.`s 2028 - 2029 of 2010 in the case of D. Velusamy Vs. D.Patchaiammal,
has inter alia held as under:-
`33. In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage` is akin
to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not
being formally married:-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to
spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage,
including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out
to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of
time.
In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage` under the 2005
Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties
must have lived together in a `shared household` as defined in Section
2 (s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand
would not make it a `domestic relationship`.
34, In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship
in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such
benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be. satisfied, and this has
to be proved by evidence. If a man has a `keep` whom he maintains financially
and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our
opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage`.
(d) No, Madam.
(e) Does not arise.
(f) Under the present social conditions it is not considered appropriate
to make any legislative changes.
