Maintenance Rights of Live-In Partners

01-Sep-2025

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

KP Raveendran Nair v. Vasantha KV

“In fact, under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005 the victim i.e. estranged wife or live-in-partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely, to a shared household also..”

Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale issued a notice on a man's plea challenging the maintainability of a Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code,1973 CrPC maintenance claim filed by his live-in partner, raising questions about the entitlement of live-in partners to maintenance.

The Supreme Court held this in the matter of KP Raveendran Nair v. Vasantha KV (2025).

What was the Background of KP Raveendran Nair v. Vasantha KV (2025) Case?

That the Petitioner KP Raveendran Nair and Respondent Vasantha KV were in a live-in relationship.
That the Respondent initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) seeking maintenance against the Petitioner before the Family Court at Vadakara as M.C. No. 107 of 2021.
That the Respondent categorically stated in her maintenance petition that she was in a live-in relationship with the Petitioner.
That the Petitioner challenged the maintainability of the Section 125 CrPC maintenance application before the Kerala High Court.
That the Kerala High Court dismissed the Petitioner's challenge vide order dated 11-03-2025 in OPCRL No. 572/2023.
That aggrieved by the Kerala High Court's decision, the Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) bearing Diary No. 39456/2025 before the Supreme Court.
That the Petitioner contends that live-in partners are not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the proceedings are not maintainable.
That the case involves the unresolved legal question of maintenance rights for live-in partners under Section 125 CrPC following unanswered references in Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2015).

What were the Court’s Observations?

Kerala High Court Observations

That the High Court dismissed the challenge to maintenance proceedings, observing that the Respondent's case was that parties lived as husband and wife since 2005.
That the High Court held Section 125 CrPC being beneficial legislation does not require strict proof of marriage to maintain a claim.
That the High Court ruled where parties cohabited for long period, presumption is in favour of marriage and maintenance cannot be denied.
That the High Court's decision was based on the principle that if parties lived together as husband and wife for long period, they are entitled to maintenance under the beneficial provisions of Section 125 CrPC.

Supreme Court

That the Court noted the Petitioner's argument that in a live-in relationship, the partner is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
That the Court observed that the Petitioner's contention was that the entire proceedings are completely misleading and not maintainable.
That after hearing the Petitioner's counsel, the Court was inclined to issue notice to the Respondent.
That the Court directed that the notice be returnable within six weeks.

Can Live-in Partner Seek Maintenance?

That Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has replaced Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance claims.
That Section 144 of BNSS 2023 specifically governs maintenance claims and provides a consolidated legal framework for financially dependent individuals.
That the maintenance provisions under BNSS 2023 aim to protect the financial interests of dependent spouses, children, and parents in certain situations.
That Section 144 of specific categories of individuals who can file for maintenance, including dependent spouses who are financially dependent and unable to maintain themselves.
That the provision under Section 144 acknowledges financial disparity that may arise after separation or divorce and allows dependent spouses to seek maintenance from their partner.
That Section 144 of BNSS 2023 does not explicitly mention live-in partners as eligible claimants for maintenance, unlike the specific reference to "dependent spouses."
That the legal framework under BNSS 2023 requires the claimant to establish their status as a "dependent spouse" to seek maintenance under Section 144.
That live-in partners may face challenges in establishing their legal status as "spouse" under the strict interpretation of Section 144 of BNSS 2023, as the provision specifically refers to depende

Legal Uncertainty

That the transition from Section 125 CrPC to Section 144 BNSS has not provided explicit clarity on the maintainability of claims by live-in partners.
That the interpretation of "dependent spouse" under Section 144 BNSS 2023 may determine whether live-in partners can successfully claim maintenance.
That live-in partners may need to establish presumption of marriage or spousal relationship to qualify under the "dependent spouse" category in Section 144 of BNSS 2023.
That the final determination of maintenance rights for live-in partners under Section 144 BNSS 2023 awaits definitive judicial pronouncement from the Supreme Court.

What are the Judicial Precedent Observations?

Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2015), the Supreme Court had referred the question of maintenance rights of live-in partners to a larger bench but the same remained unanswered.
- That the 2018 Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi refused to answer the reference, noting that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides more efficacious remedies to live-in partners.
- That the Court in the 2018 case observed that under the DVC Act, 2005, the victim (estranged wife or live-in partner) would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 CrPC, including rights to a shared household.
Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, the Supreme Court clarified that strict proof of marriage is unnecessary in Section 125 CrPC proceedings, particularly where parties have held themselves out to society as husband and wife.
- That the present case thus brings to fore the unresolved legal question regarding the scope and application of maintenance provisions under Section 125 CrPC to live-in relationships in the absence of a definitive judicial pronouncement on the matter.