AI generated imageNEW DELHI: The Allahabad high court refused to grant maintenance to a woman who claimed that she was in a live-in relationship with a man. The court said she cannot seek the legal protection available to women in live-in relationships because she neither claimed nor proved that she was in such a relationship. The court added that a woman cannot claim these benefits unless she is able to show that she was either legally married or living in a live-in relationship.Why did the woman approach the high court?According to the court order, the woman challenged a 2022 family court order that had rejected her claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC while allowing maintenance for her biological minor son. She claimed that she had married the man without knowing that he was already married and that she should not be denied maintenance just because he is still in his earlier marriage.Before the high court, she relied on earlier judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, arguing that women in relationships similar to marriage should not be denied maintenance. She contended that the family court had wrongly rejected her claim despite her assertion that she was the man's legally wedded wife.The state opposed her plea, arguing that the man had denied any marital relationship with her and that she had failed to produce credible evidence showing that a valid marriage had been solemnised between them. It further argued that there was no material on record to establish that the parties had ever lived together in a live-in relationship either.Why did the high court reject her plea?Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla held that the Supreme Court's decision in Chanmuniya is different from the current case because, in that case, the fact regarding the marriage was not disputed, whereas in the present case the alleged husband had specifically denied both the marriage and any relationship with the woman. The court also noted that she had failed to establish that a valid marriage had taken place."There is neither any pleading nor any material on record to suggest that the parties were living in a live-in relationship. Accordingly, the facts of Chanmuniya are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present revision, and the ratio laid down therein has no application to the controversy involved in the present revision," the court observed.The court further held that a claimant cannot invoke the protection available to persons in live-in relationships without first establishing the existence of such a relationship."Where there is neither any specific pleading regarding the existence of a live-in relationship nor any evidence establishing the solemnization of marriage between the parties, the claimant seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot claim the benefit available to persons in a live-in relationship, particularly when the existence of such relationship has been categorically denied by the opposite party," the court said.Holding that the family court had committed no illegality or jurisdictional error, the high court dismissed the woman's revision petition. However, the order granting maintenance to her biological minor son remains unaffected.