Specific provisions related to appeals in civil matters include:

 Section 96 of the CPC allows for an appeal to a High Court against a decree
passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction.
 Section 100 of the CPC allows for a second appeal based on substantial
questions of law to the High Court.

Ques.1- Whether widow Maria (So called wife of Sanat Kumar on ground of
livein relationship) is entitled for maintenance with her father in law.

Ans.1- Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr

(2011)

 Citation: (2011) 1 SCC 141

 Summary: The Supreme Court advocated for a broad interpretation of the
term “wife” under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It suggested that in cases where a
man and a woman have lived together for a long time as husband and wife,
the woman should be entitled to maintenance under the law.

Ques.-2 Whether the special leave petition under article 136 of constitution,
brought before this court is maintainable?
Ans.2- Yes, after an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is
rejected by the High Court, the aggrieved party has the option to file a Special Leave
Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court.
Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or
made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India, except for the court or tribunal
constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Justification and Relevant Case Laws

Article 136 of the Constitution provides a discretionary power to the Supreme

Court, allowing it to intervene in cases it considers significant or where it appears
that injustice might have been done. This provision is designed as a measure of last
resort, where the aggrieved party feels that substantial justice has been denied by
the High Court. However, it's important to note that filing an SLP under Article 136 is
not a right but a privilege, and the Supreme Court has the discretion to refuse or
grant the leave to appeal.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. vs Chandrika & Ors (2016)
o Citation: (2016) 6 SCC 157
o Summary: In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the power
conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is wide and discretionary,
and it can interfere with the judgment or order appealed against if it
finds that there has been a failure of justice or misuse of judicial
discretion.
2. Kunhayammed & Ors vs State of Kerala & Anr (2000)
o Citation: (2000) 6 SCC 359
o Summary: This landmark judgment clarified the scope of Article 136,
stating that the Supreme Court could reconsider and reappreciate the
evidence and the materials on record if it is convinced that the findings
and conclusion reached by the High Court are palpably wrong or based
on erroneous view of the law or if significant procedural irregularities
have affected the outcome of the case.
3. Mathai @ Joby vs George & Anr (2010)
o Citation: (2010) 4 SCC 358
o Summary: This case is significant for understanding the nature of the
Special Leave Petition under Article 136. The Supreme Court observed
that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal but a discretionary
power upon the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against any
judgment, decree, sentence, or order in any case or matter passed or
made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

These cases demonstrate that while the Supreme Court exercises its discretion
judiciously, it is indeed open to entertaining an SLP under Article 136, especially in
matters of grave injustice or legal significance, including those related to succession
pleas. However, the aggrieved party must convincingly demonstrate that their case
involves substantial questions of law or gross injustice, warranting the Supreme
Court's intervention.

Ques.3- Whether the live in relationship in modern Indian society is valid?

Ans.3-In modern Indian society, live-in relationships have gained recognition and
have been subject to judicial scrutiny, reflecting changing social norms and values.
While Indian law does not explicitly provide a legal framework for live-in
relationships as it does for marriage, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in
recognizing and providing rights to individuals in such relationships, particularly
through interpretations under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (PWDVA), and principles of justice and equity.

Judicial Recognition and Case Laws:

 1. D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal (2010)
o Citation: (2010) 10 SCC 469
o Summary: The Supreme Court laid down conditions under which a
live-in relationship would be recognized under the PWDVA. The court
distinguished between relationships in the nature of marriage and
casual relationships, stating that not all live-in relationships would be
entitled to legal protection. For a relationship to be considered in the
nature of marriage, partners must hold themselves out to society as
akin to spouses, and must be of legal age to marry, must be otherwise
qualified to enter into a legal marriage, and must have voluntarily
cohabited for a significant period of time.
2. Indra Sarma vs V.K.V. Sarma (2013)
o Citation: (2013) 15 SCC 755
o Summary: This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court further
elaborated on the concept of live-in relationships, categorizing
different scenarios under which the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, applies. The court recognized that not all
live-in relationships will be considered as relationships in the "nature of
marriage" and therefore not all women in live-in relationships are
entitled to maintenance under the Act. It emphasized protecting
women from abuse and exploitation in certain types of live-in
relationships.
3. S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr (2010)
o Citation: (2010) 5 SCC 600
o Summary: In this case, the Supreme Court held that living together is a
right to life and not a "criminal offence", thereby providing legal
recognition to live-in relationships. The court observed that live-in
relationships are permissible, and the act of two adults living together
cannot be considered illegal or unlawful.

Legal Implications and Social Acceptance:

These judgments indicate a shift towards greater acceptance and recognition of live-
in relationships in Indian law, emphasizing the protection of individual rights and the
need to adapt legal frameworks to changing societal norms. However, the legal
status and rights arising from live-in relationships are not as clear-cut as those from
marriage, particularly concerning property rights, inheritance, and maintenance,
which are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

The legal recognition of live-in relationships demonstrates the judiciary's

responsiveness to evolving social patterns, aiming to protect the rights and dignity of
individuals choosing to live outside the traditional bounds of marriage. However,
despite this judicial recognition, societal acceptance varies widely across different
parts of India, influenced by cultural, religious, and regional factors.

In summary, while live-in relationships have gained a certain level of validation in

modern Indian society through judicial pronouncements, they exist in a complex
legal and social landscape, balancing individual autonomy against traditional norms.

Ques.4- Whether the child is legitimate and entitled to the property of his
father?
Ans.4- In India, the legal framework concerning the legitimacy of children born out
of live-in relationships and their rights, especially regarding inheritance, has been
evolving. Judicial pronouncements have increasingly recognized the rights of such
children, aiming to prevent undue hardship and social stigma.

Legal Status of Children from Live-In Relationships:

1. Legitimacy and Rights Under Personal Laws: Traditional personal laws in

India, which govern matters of marriage, succession, and inheritance, typically
do not explicitly address the status of children born out of live-in
relationships. However, the interpretation of these laws has been subject to
judicial scrutiny.
2. Protection Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Although the Act does not
directly address live-in relationships, it does provide that a child born out of a
void or voidable marriage is deemed legitimate. This provision has been
interpreted by some courts to extend certain protections to children born
from relationships that resemble a marriage in their social acceptance and
permanence.
3. Judicial Pronouncements: Indian courts have taken progressive steps to
protect the rights of children born out of live-in relationships, emphasizing the
best interests of the child and the principle of equality.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya & Ors (2008)

o Citation: AIR 2008 SC 1193
o Summary: The Supreme Court held that children born out of live-in
relationships could not be termed illegitimate. The Court recognized
the right of such children to inherit the property of their parents.
2. Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Anr (2008)
o Citation: AIR 2008 SC 1385
o Summary: This case further affirmed the rights of children born from
live-in relationships to inherit their parents' property, including self-
acquired and ancestral property.
 3. Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors (2010)
o Citation: (2010) 11 SCC 483
o Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that a child born out of a live-in
relationship was entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral property,
though the rights might vary concerning self-acquired property of the
parents.

Conclusion:

From these judgments, it is evident that the Indian judiciary has made strides toward
recognizing the legitimacy of children born from live-in relationships, especially
concerning their rights to their parents' property. These decisions reflect a broader
legal and social acknowledgment of the changing dynamics of familial relationships
in contemporary society.

However, it's important to note that the legal landscape is complex and subject to
the specifics of each case, including the nature of the relationship, the societal
acceptance of the relationship, and the laws applicable to the parties involved.
Therefore, individuals concerned with specific legal advice regarding the rights of
children born out of live-in relationships should consult a legal professional.

Ques.5- Whether Maria is entitled to the property to her partner Mr. Sanat
Kumar(Deceased)?
Ans.5- Under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the entitlement of a female partner in a
live-in relationship to her deceased male partner's property is not explicitly provided
for. The Special Marriage Act primarily deals with the procedure for solemnizing
marriages between parties of different religions or nationalities or between parties
with or without their religious beliefs. It does not specifically address the property
rights of partners in live-in relationships.

In the absence of specific provisions in the Special Marriage Act regarding property
rights of partners in live-in relationships, the rights and entitlements of the female
partner would be subject to the general principles of inheritance and property laws
applicable in India. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Inheritance Laws: In India, inheritance laws are primarily governed by

personal laws based on religion, as well as by general laws such as the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, for individuals not covered under specific personal laws.
2. Legal Status of Live-In Relationships: While the legal status of live-in
relationships has been recognized and protected by Indian courts to some
extent, the rights of partners in such relationships to inherit property are not
as clear-cut as those of legally married spouses.
3. Judicial Interpretation: Indian courts have, in certain cases, recognized the
rights of partners in live-in relationships to inherit property, especially if the
relationship can be proved to be akin to marriage and of a permanent nature.
However, each case is decided on its own merits, and there is no blanket rule
applicable to all scenarios.
4. Equitable Relief: Even in the absence of specific legal provisions, courts may
provide equitable relief to partners in live-in relationships, especially if they
can demonstrate financial dependence on the deceased partner or
contribution to the acquisition or maintenance of the property.