The reporting seems a bit sensationalist. On the contrary, a plain reading of the matter, and in my opinion as an attorney, it looks simply as if the the judge has attempted to mould the relief made available to the plaintiff in a manner such that a deadbeat dad doesnt get away without paying alimony, after siring two children with her. I dont know what Indian law says , but if there is no specific provision to hold common law marriage on the same footing as a registered marriage, then this would be the only way to prevent the dad from just walking off without shouldering any responsibility.
This is similar to the Marvin case in the US which ruled that women shacked up with men have rights similar to that of wives when they break up. IMO that ruling essentially killed the incentive for marriage leading to a vast increase in couples living together. If women knew they could get squat after living with a man for years, they would insist on getting married to protect themselves.
IMHO.