India asks women to prove live-in relationships are not just sex
The decision was based on the case of a couple who had lived together for 14 years before their relationship ended. While a lower court is yet to decide whether this was a valid live-in relationship, the Supreme Court has said that to qualify for maintenance from the man, the woman must prove they have voluntarily cohabited and presented themselves to the world as “akin to spouses for a significant period of time.”
Palimony is an increasingly popular term used to describe the division of financial assets and property at the end of a relationship in which the parties are not legally married, first coined by celebrity divorce lawyer Marvin Mitchelson in the 1970s.
In this case, the Indian court ruled that if a man has a woman who he maintains financially and that he ‘uses mainly for sexual purpose and as a servant’, the relationship is not in ‘the nature of marriage’. The woman involved cannot therefore expect to receive the same rights as married women.
The irony of this story for me is this: if the Supreme Court so casually accepts that women may be used by men for ‘sexual purposes’ and as ‘servants’, the women of India can hardly expect to receive the same basic rights as the rest of the human race, let alone ascend to the sacred rights of ‘married women’.
Read the full story at NDTV.