THE Supreme Court has called upon parliament to pass a law laying down the rights of cohabiting partners and their children. Judgments by higher courts in previous years have tried to increase the rights of women living with men without tying the knot. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 says that such a relationship should be construed as a relationship in the nature of marriage. But what about maintenance rights which cause a sharp controversy? The Supreme Court in 2010 clarified what entitled a woman to maintenance in cases where consensual relationship lasted for quite some time. The question of redress, property rights or other benefits is tricky. Cohabiting couples are not recognized as legally married even in countries more progressive than India. There may be a government sanctioned civil partnership or a cohabitation agreement. But the absence of the marital knot is supposed to enable men in such partnerships to avoid the social burden. In the event of death or separation, however, complications arise.
The Supreme Court is right about demanding clarity on relationships out of wedlock. It applies particularly to women who have been in such a relationship for years bearing the obligations of married wives. In such relationships at present, men usually have an advantage over female partners. The contribution of women in such a relationship often goes unnoticed. It should be the responsibility of parliament to define domestic partnerships and the rights of the partners when such a relationship comes to an end.
