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.
The court ruled he must pay CHILD support. She choose to live with him with out being married. If she is no longer willing to provide services why should he have to keep paying for those services. He is not a dead beat dad he is just walking away from the lease agreement. I guess she should have waited for a lifelong contract of marriage.
He’s wouldn’t be walking away without any responsibility, since the lower court already ordered him to pay child support. This is just a backdoor way to make him pay alimony to someone who he made no commitment to support. What is next? Go to a prostitute and you have to make monthly payments to her for the rest of your life?
>>then this would be the only way to prevent the dad from just walking off without shouldering any responsibility.<<
That should the point. Child support is a given. But if some lady wants to slut around without benefit of marriage there should be no benefit to her.
If she wants a legally binding contract that includes benefits, they call that “marriage.”
India look like it might be going down the “palimony” rabbit hole.