He said his live-in partner was a `call girl‘ and alleged that she had decided to live with him on her own wish since 1986. They lived together for nine years and a child was born to them in 1988. Justices Sen and Sapre slammed `Z’ for referring to his erstwhile livein partner as a `call girl’ and said he was a philanderer as he was living with another woman despite being married.
“How absurd is your argument. You yourself went for the live-in relationship but now you are branding the poor lady as call girl. You are such an idiot that you went for a relationship. You are yourself a philanderer as you got into a relationship despite being married,“ the bench said.
In this case, the woman had first approached the family co urt in Bandra for declaration of their relationship as husband and wife. The court, however, refused her plea after `Z’ told the court he was already married to someone else. She then approached the HC, which had said she was eligible to claim maintenance for herself and her daughter. `Z’ challenged the HC order in the SC.
The court, in its various orders, has recognized live-in relationships. It has gone to the extent of saying that if a man and woman “lived like husband and wife“ for a long period and had children, the judiciary would presume that the two were legally married.