Sunday, October 10, 2010

Palimony vs Alimony - Indian court definitions

India's supreme court was deliberating on the possibility of awarding some type of alimony for live-in relationships, citing palimony in California as example. I was a bit surprised, since California did not recognize common law marriage, so awarding any form of alimony for such live-in relationships would recognize them as marriage and would be contradictory. Turns out, palimony in California is not based on rights as a married couple - the claiming spouse must prove some other underlying implied contract, written or oral, that forms the basis of the getting some compensation. I was wondering how the Indian courts would apply this logic in the Indian context.

Finally, the Indian court ruled no palimony unless a few things are satisfied such as live-in relationships for significant period and they conduct themselves as husband and wife to society. Just weekend stays, one-night stands, only for sex relationships don't qualify. Bottom line, they have mixed up marital rights with live-in relationships if the husband-wife thing can be shown. No time line is specified, so even a six month live-in with some basis of husband-wife (maybe they lied so to rent a place!) could end up in a life-long alimony (or palimony) award!

Nobody wants to look at other California guidelines on alimony that makes it crisp, predictable and fair - like, roughly 40% of income awarded to non-earning spouse. regardless of gender, for roughly half the time the marriage. For whatever reasons, Indian regulators love fuzzy logic!

No comments: