- As you are aware, the Indian justice delivery system is berated, ridiculed, cursed, and derisively spoken at the best of times. The all-pervading cynicism prevalent in the general public about the overall justice delivery system in the country has taken deep roots, courtesy of how common citizens are made to run from pillar to post seeking relief but failing to deliver on time. The pace at which the courts function with no relief in sight, despite spending years seeking one, has been a subject of cinema, print and electronic media, satire, and standup acts highlighting the plight of commoners. Despite emphasizing this aspect in every conceivable way, the millions of undertrials languishing in jails across the country speak volumes about how we are yet to cover the ground.
PC: Telegraph India
- Thankfully, the higher judiciary, led by the SC, has initiated honest efforts at addressing the palpable lacuna in the best way possible. Yes, though most of us would want to believe that the higher judiciary is making earnest efforts at addressing malaise, the rot in the system is well entrenched to show welcome results. The lower judiciary has failed to live up to the expectations of the higher judiciary. Keeping pace in line with the modern-day trend is of utmost importance. The rights of the LGBTQIA+ community have been in the news since most progressive nations have accorded due consideration to them on par with conventionally oriented people. Most welcomingly, a recent Mumbai magistrate’s ruling on live-in couples’ rights contrasts with many higher courts’ dodgy moralizing.
PC: Law Trend
- Given the times, a magistrate court’s order on live-ins was especially welcome. The court ruled that a woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to monthly maintenance, as provided in the Domestic Violence Act. The magistrate didn’t agree with the monetary claim the woman asked for, but even while setting a smaller amount, agreed in principle that she has a right to claim maintenance. The order is excellent news for legal protections for live-ins. But that it came from a subordinate court is perhaps the greater win. High courts and subordinate courts far too frequently issue orders contravening SC’s precedents and legislative amendments. This is noticeable especially on issues involving line-in relationships and couple-rights. As a result, petitioners must trudge through the arduous appeals process to avail simplest of protections.
PC: Times of Oman
- Not everyone has the financial wherewithal or stamina to do this. Note that in 2003, Malimath Committee recommended that a woman in a live-in relationship for a reasonable period has the legal rights of a wife. In 2006, the Domestic Violence Act extended protection against violence to live-in partners. SC’s view has consistently evolved from considering such partnerships as a precursor to marriage to seeing living-in as a parallel, autonomous institution of civil union, partners, deserving the same protections as a married couple in terms of family finances, inheritance/succession, and physical/mental securities. Given that even many higher judiciary judges’ moralizing instincts are getting the better of their jurisprudence skills, the Mumbai magistrate’s order has exceptional significance.
