| NAME OF THE CASE | D VELUSAMY V. D PATCHAIAMMAL |
| CIATION | AIR 2011 SC 479, (CA) NO. 2028-2029 OF 2010 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 21-10-2010 |
| BENCH | JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU, JUSTICE T. S. THAKUR |
| APPELLANT | D. VELUSAMY |
| RESPONDENT | D. PATCHAIAMMAL |
FACT
The appellant alleged himself to be validly married to one Lakshmi on 25.06.1980 under the Hindu customary ceremony, and he had a son who is currently studying engineering in Ooty. He is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Coimbatore.
The respondent, D. Patchaiammal, presented a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2001, stating that she had been married to the appellant on 14.09.1986 and cohabited with him for 2–3 years in her father’s house until he left her. She stated that she had no source of livelihood whereas the appellant was getting ₹10,000/month, and asked for ₹500/month as maintenance.
The appellant rejected this so-called marriage and presented evidence like a ration card, voter ID, school records of his son, hospital discharge certificates, and wedding snaps to establish his marriage with Lakshmi. The respondent’s 12-year delay in presenting the maintenance petition cast suspicion on her assertion.
ISSUE
- Whether the appellant had already entered into a valid marriage with Lakshmi prior to the alleged marriage with the respondent?
- Whether the respondent is legally entitled to claim maintenance U/S 125 of the CrPC.
PETITIONER ARGUMENT
The petitioner alleged to have been legally married to the appellant on 14.09.1986 as per Hindu rituals and to have cohabited with her in her father’s residence for 2–3 years until she was deserted by the appellant. She complained that she did not possess independent sources of livelihood, while the appellant was receiving a monthly salary of ₹10,000 as a school teacher. As she could not support herself, while the appellant had the means but would not contribute towards her maintenance, she submitted a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance of ₹500 per month. She claimed her position as the legally wedded wife of the appellant and contended that she had been abandoned by him without reasonable ground and was entitled to maintenance in accordance with law.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
This provision requires a man to support financially his “wife” if she cannot support herself. The expression “wife” includes a woman who is judicially divorced, but does not extend to women in relationships falling short of a valid marriage or its judicial equivalent.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
In accordance with Section 2(f), a “domestic relationship” encompasses relationships similar to marriage in nature. As per Section 20(1)(d), the Act makes it possible for giving money relief to women who have been economically abused under such domestic relationships.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court observed that Lakshmi—whose marital status was central to the dispute—was neither notified nor given a chance to be heard by the Family Court or the High Court. This lack of participation violated the principle of natural justice, invalidating the findings regarding her marital status.
Applicability of Section 125 CrPC vs Domestic Violence Act: Section 125 CrPC applies only to women who are legally married or divorced. In contrast, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, offers broader protection by including women in relationships “in the nature of marriage.”
Criteria for “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage”: The Court clarified that not every live-in relationship qualifies for legal recognition. For such a relationship to fall under the Act, certain conditions must be satisfied:
Public Representation: The couple must present themselves socially as husband and wife. Marriage Eligibility: Both individuals must be legally free to marry (i.e., unmarried and of marriageable age).
Willing Cohabitation: They must have lived together voluntarily for a substantial duration. Shared Residence: The couple must share a household, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act. Reference to Common Law Marriage: The Court drew analogies with common law marriage systems in countries like the USA, where prolonged cohabitation and mutual recognition as spouses can result in certain legal rights.
Errors by Lower Courts: Both the Family Court and the High Court failed to properly examine whether Velusamy and Patchaiammal’s cohabitation resembled a marital relationship. These shortcomings called for a fresh judicial review to evaluate the legitimacy of both marriages and the nature of their relationship.
