Live-in partner not a 'keep': Govt protests-Oct 22, 2010

Live-in partner not a 'keep': Govt protests

CNN-IBN

Posted on Oct 22, 2010 at 15:07 |

Updated Oct 22, 2010 at 16:09

New Delhi: The use of the word 'keep' by the Supreme Court in its judgement on live-in relations on Thursday has pitted Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising against the two judges who gave the verdict in the case.
Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising on Friday criticised the two Supreme Court judges - Markandey Katju and TS Thakur - and requested the court to desist from using gender sensitive words while passing judgements.
She told the bench of Justices Katju and Thakur that she would move an application to expunge the word 'keep' from the judgement. She said how can the Supreme Court of India use the word 'keep' in the 21st century.

"I object to the use of word 'keep' and 'one night stance' in Supreme Court judgement. These words should be expunged from the judgement. These words are very insensitive. The expressions are very derogatory and reflect badly on women. Language should reflect our commitment to gender equality. It's a moral judgement and don't think Supreme Court should be using these words," said Indira.
The Additional Solicitor General said that word has upset her so much that she would like to disassociate herself with the apex court.
Justice Katju, who was heading the bench, told the Additional Solicitor General to confine herself to the case before the court.
However, Justice Thakur intervened and asked her whether the expression 'concubine' would have been more appropriate than the word 'keep'.
In an important verdict, the Supreme Court had on Thursday held that a woman in a live-in relationship would not be entitled to maintenance unless she fulfilled certain parameters.
It had also observed that merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship.
"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," the apex court had observed while passing its verdict on Thursday.
The apex court had passed the judgement while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to D Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the appellant D Velusamy.
(With inputs from PTI)