D. VELUSAMY V. D. PATCHAIAMMAL

1. VELUSAMY V. D. PATCHAIAMMAL[i]

CITATION

Title of the case: D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Year: 21 October 2010

Criminal Appeal No. 2028-2029__OF 2010

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 2273-2274/2010

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Patchaiammal filed a case under section 125[ii] of Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance from D. Velusamy in the year 2001 in Family Court, Coimbatore. She claimed that she got married to him (appellant) on 14.09.1986, and they were living together at her father’s house for two or three years but later the appellant deserted her. She prayed to the court to give her monthly maintenance as she has no means of livelihood and that her husband is a Secondary Grade Teacher who earns Rs. 10,000 every month. So, she wants Rs 500 as monthly allowance.
2. The appellant stated that he was married to Lakshmi on 25.06.1980 by following the proper ceremonies of marriage. From the marriage, they have a child who is studying in Engineering College at Ooty. He has also given certain proofs to show his marriage with Lakshmi is valid. He showed his wedding photographs, wife’s discharge certificate from hospital, voter identity card of his wife and transfer certificate of his son.
3. On this, the Family Court held on 05.03.2004 that the respondent is his actual wife and not Lakshmi. The High Court also upheld the decision of the Family Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The case was initially decided by Family Court of Coimbatore by judgement dated 05.03.2004 and then the Madras High Court by judgement dated 12.10.2009, upheld the decision of Family court. Finally, the case has been appealed to the Supreme Court by D. Pelusamy as he was aggrieved by the decision of lower courts for declaring his marriage with Lakshmi to be of no existence. The case is finally decided by the Supreme Court of India which acted in its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction. The Bench in the Supreme Court constituted of J. T.S. Thakur and J. Markandey Katju.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether D. Patchaiammal is the legal wife of D. Velusamy?
2. Whether D. Patchaiammal is entitled to get maintenance from D. Velusamy under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code?

RULES

The Supreme Court in this case used the Purposive Rule of Interpretation. It means that when the plain meaning of the statute cannot be taken as it would cause grave injustice, the court uses external aids of interpretation to interpret any statute.

The court interpreted the phrase “relationship in nature of marriage” used in the definition of “domestic violence” under section 2(f)[iii] of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in a purposive manner. The court used this rule of interpretation as the court aimed at providing protection to certain class of women who are not married but are living in a relationship which is similar to marriage. This approach by the Apex Court of our India is taken to ensure that the legislative’s intent of protecting all women from domestic violence is achieved.

Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are the legal provisions discussed in this case. The court has set the criteria for live-in-relationships by this landmark judgement.

ANALYSIS

The Court’s analysis to the first legal issue regarding the marital status of respondent is stated as follows:

1. The Appellant’s Counsel contended that according to the statement of the respondent, she married to him in 1986 and later she was deserted by him 2-3 years after. It implies that he deserted her in 1988 or 1989, then why did she apply for maintenance in the year 2001. This is clear case of concoction by the respondent just to defame the character of the appellant as he was a legally wedded man. To prove his marriage with Lakshmi to be legal, he has showed several valid proofs in the Family court as well as the High Court.
2. The Supreme Court stated that Lakshmi was neither made a party to the proceedings nor was she issued notice to be present in the Court. So how can her marital status be denied as it violates the rules of natural justice. When Lakshmi is not given opportunity of being heard, it is against the public policy to declare her marriage as non-existing. The declaration made by the High Court regarding the status of her marriage was considered to be an error and hence nothing proves as to the validity of marriage of respondent to appellant. Additionally, section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code in its explanation(b) of sub-section 1[iv] provides that, “Wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.”
3. The appellant’s counsel brought a focus on the case of Vimala (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375][v], where the court stated that when first wife is living, the marriage with second wife is not only void but also ends the right to get maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Additionally, the Appellant’s Counsel cited an example of Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others (AIR 2005 SC 1809)[vi], where the court held that the second wife will not be constituted in the definition of wife under section 125(1) explanation (b).
4. The Apex Court after hearing the contentions of both the learned counsels, held that the lower courts errored their decision in deciding the marital status of Lakshmi, and the marital status of the respondent cannot be decided as of now and hence she cannot be added to the definition of wife.

The Court’s analysis to the second legal issue regarding the granting of maintenance to the respondent is stated as follows:

5. The Court interpreted the phrase “relationship in the nature of marriage”. The Court stated that legislative’s intent must be different to use two distinct phrases “relationship of marriage” and “relationship in the nature of marriage”. The Act doesn’t define the term hence the court interpreted it according to the new norms arising out in the society.
6. The Court pointed out the judgment in S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600[vii], where the court stated that live-in-relationships are not illegal as there is no statute or provision of any statute which declares it illegal. The Supreme Court in this case, interpreted the relation of appellant and respondent to be live-in-relationship.
7. Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code states that a wife is entitled to get maintenance termed as alimony. But the live-in-relationship is nowhere defined in this section. In some states of U.S.A., if a girl is deserted by her partner in a live-in-relationship where they lived together for a certain period of time, she will get maintenance known as palimony[viii]. In our India as well, there is an increase in live-in-relationships, so the Court has decided to set a certain criterion to better understand the meaning of the above stated phrase. The quoted criteria decided by the case is,
   • The partners must fulfil the age criteria for marriage by our laws.
   • They must not be disqualified for entering into a legal marriage.
   • They must have voluntarily cohabited in the society for a reasonably long amount of time and the society must consider them to be legally wedded.
   • They must be living together as spouses.[ix]
8. The Family Court has failed to discover that if they lived together for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship similar to marriage. Hence, it would be wrong to give the respondent the right to maintenance, dismissing the appeal and the court also set aside the judgements of High court and Family Court.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court observed the facts of the case and interpreted the phrase “relationship in the nature of marriage” used in section 2(f) to define domestic relationship of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Apex Court broadened the term and included live-in-relationships in the phrase. The court could not re-phrase it as it is the work of Parliament but interpreted the phrase according to the society which is changing. The Honorable Court also contended that all live-in-relationships would not constitute domestic relationships and has set certain guidelines as to which relation will get concluded.

LEGAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT

The case had a profound impact on the society concerning the new burning topic of live-in-relationships. This case has been marked up as a legal precedent in all of the cases of live-in-relationships. It brought attention towards the protection of women in such relationships. The women in these relations get empowered to reach out to court to fight for their rights like that of seeking maintenance and protection from domestic violence. By citing an example of Payal Sharma v. N. Talwar[x] in the year 2018, where it was held that a girl from a live-in-relationship who comes under the definition of ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ has been given equal status as that of a legally wedded wife and the child born out of this relationship is entitled to get maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, so we conclude that this case has been set as a landmark for so many cases in the future of similar type.

Reference(s):

[i] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1521881/

[ii] https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/civilandcriminal/17.php?Title=Recommendations%20for%20amending%20various%20Enactments%20-%20Both%20Civil%20and%20Criminal&STitle=Section%20125%20of%20the%20Code%20of%20Criminal%20Procedure,%201973

[iii] http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Studentmodules/Law-of-Crimes/Protection-Of-Women-From-Domestic-Violence-Act-2005.htm#:~:text=Section%202(f)%3A%20%22domestic,together%20as%20a%20joint%20family.

[iv] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/582850/

[v] https://www.pahujalawacademy.com/vimala-k-vs-veeraswamy-k-1991-2-scc-375

[vi]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae1be4b0149711412fbc

[vii] https://www.simplekanoon.com/family-law/s-khushboo-vs-kanniammal-1488/

[viii] https://www.contimoorelaw.com/resources/what-is-palimony/

[ix] https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/37007.pdf

[x] https://aishwaryasandeep.in/live-in-relationship-and-hindu-divorce-laws/