The recent Supreme Court judgment says, "If a man has a keep for only sexual purpose; his partner would not be entitled to maintenance." Many people have objected to the expression "keep".
But the key here is "for only sexual purpose", that means there is no relationship, and if there is no relationship and two consenting adults are living together just for sex and one is keeping the other than what is wrong with the word "keep"? I agree it sounds crass and it shouldn’t have come from the judiciary but this is a fact. What is wrong in calling a spade a spade?
I think people are needlessly being "elitist" and sensitive towards the entire issue. A "keep" whether a woman or a man must know what he or she is getting into — he or she is just like a vending machine and nothing more (taking the words of the judgment at face value): you insert the coin and you get what you want.
Maintenance and other packages come into the picture if there is some factor of commitment involved, if there is an emotion, if there is a relationship. Agreed, there IS a relationship — sexual — but it might be same as having, say, a food relationship or a travel relationship. You are just indulging in an activity that provides you pleasure and beyond that there is nothing much. As an adult you must know that and accept the consequences.
To be frank, I don’t know what the real situation is so my words are not directed towards the people involved in the case. Maybe someone is really being exploited here. Maybe the person who is being branded as a "keep" didn’t know that she was being used as a keep. Maybe she thought they were into a relationship. Then it becomes a different matter and my opinion totally changes. Then she is entitled to all the benefits that a person gets when he or she is at a disadvantage and the other person is at an advantage, whether it is financial or social. Actually in such cases the judges have to be very sensitive and wise, and sadly, our judges, most of them, lack these qualities.