Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Markandey Katju, Justice T.S. Thakur
Date of Judgement: October 21, 2010
Facts of the Case: The appellant alleged that he was married according to the Hindu Customary Rites with one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980. Their male child was born, who was studying in an Engineering college at Ooty. The petitioner was working as a Secondary Teacher. The respondent-D. Patchaiammal filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2001 before the Family Court at Coimbatore in which she alleged that she was married to the appellant herein on 14.9.1986 and since then the appellant and she lived together in her father’s house for two or three years. It was alleged in the petition that after two or three years the appellant left the house of the respondent’s father and started living in his native place, but would visit the respondent occasionally. It was alleged that the appellant deserted the respondent herein (petitioner in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) two or three years after marrying her in 1986. She alleged that she did not have any kind of livelihood and she is unable to maintain herself. Hence, it was prayed that the appellant be directed to pay Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner.
In his counter affidavit filed by the appellant herein before the Family Court, Coimbatore, it was alleged that appellant was married to one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980 as per the Hindu Marriage rites and customs and he had a male child, who is studying in C.S.I. Engineering college at Ooty. To prove his marriage with Lakshmi the appellant produced the ration card, voter’s identity card of his wife, transfer certificate of his son, discharge certificate of his wife Lakshmi from hospital, photographs of the wedding, etc.
Issue: The learned Family Court Judge held that the appellant was married to the respondent and not to Lakshmi. These findings have been upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the judgement, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Judgement: It was observed that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for giving maintenance to the wife and some other relatives. The word `wife’ has been defined as “Wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.”
In Vimala (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375], this Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. When an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already married, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term `wife’ consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife, and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision.”
In a subsequent decision of this Court in Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2005 SC 1809, this Court held that however desirable it may be to take note of the plight of an unfortunate woman, who unwittingly enters into wedlock with a married man, there is no scope to include a woman not lawfully married within the expression of `wife’. The Bench held that this inadequacy in law can be amended only by the Legislature.
In the instant case, Lakshmi was not married to the appellant it cannot be said at this stage that the respondent herein is the wife of the appellant. A divorced wife is treated as a wife for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. But if a person has not even been married obviously that person could not be divorced. Hence the respondent herein cannot claim to be the wife of the appellant herein, unless it is established that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi.
However, the question has also to be examined from the point of view of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.In the expression `domestic relationship’ includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship `in the nature of marriage’. The question, therefore, arises as to what is the meaning of the expression `a relationship in the nature of marriage’. Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of this expression we think it necessary to interpret it because a large number of cases will be coming up before the Courts in our country on this point, and hence an authoritative decision is required.
Ratio: In the aforesaid Act of 2005 Parliament had taken notice of a new social phenomenon which has emerged in our country known as live-in relationship. This new relationship is still rare in our country, and is sometimes found in big urban cities in India. 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’. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a `domestic relationship’.
Decision: The High Court and the learned Family Court Judge erred in law in holding that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi without even issuing notice to Lakshmi. The question whether the appellant was married to the respondent or not can be decided only after the aforesaid finding. Appeals were allowed.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS