SHILLONG, DEC 5: The Seng Kur ka Mei-Sin bad ki Khun Jong Ka (SKMKJK) has demanded the state government to bring amendment to the Meghalaya Compulsory Registration of Marriage (Amendment) Act, 2017 and its Rules, 2015.
In a letter to the chief minister Mukul Sangma on Tuesday, Clan president PBM Basaiawmoit said, “It is hoped that through you, Government will further amend the Act and Rules accordingly this year itself.”
The proposed amendment was sought after the words “live in relationship” were deleted from the Meghalaya Compulsory Registration of Marriage (Amendment) Act.
Ironically, while Meghalaya deleted the words “live in relationship” from its 2015 amended Act, the Supreme Court, on 13 April, 2015, recognized “live in relationship” as not being illegal and therefore, not a crime, he said.
“In modern times, live in relationship has become an acceptable norm. It is not a crime” observed a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla O. Pant.
He said it may be pointed out that in the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Parliament had inserted the phrase “relationship in the nature of marriage” and not “live in relationship.”
“From the point of view of our clan, we strongly feel that instead of the phrase “of living together or cohabitation not covered by their respective personal laws” as inserted by the 2017 amended Act, the words/phrase inserted in the 2012 principal Act should be re-inserted, i.e. “live in relationship” or the phrase inserted in the 2005 Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, viz. “relationship in the nature of marriage”. Again, the aforementioned have to be qualified,” he said.
Basaiawmoit said with reference to the term/phrase “relationship in the nature of marriage, the Supreme Court had this to say – “Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’.
It also held that if a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.
With reference to “live in relationship”, he said the Supreme Court “made it clear that if a man has a live in arrangement with a woman only for sexual reasons, neither partner can claim benefits of a legal marriage.
Further, the Clan also suggested that there must be modus operandi to register or record keeping of such live in relationship in that such couples, must register their live in relationship(s) within a stipulated period otherwise, alimony and/ palimony will not be obtainable should either of them, desert the other, particular the woman, after having given birth to one or more off springs.
Stating that the only person or authority which can vouchsafe of such a relationship will be the village/local headman or village/local traditional institution, Basaiawmoit said therefore, such a person or local authority should be vested with the position of being local registrar for live in relationships.
By Our Reporter
+ There are no comments
Add yours