The court examined whether the relationship between the respondent and the appellant qualified as a domestic relationship under the terms of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005, or as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” in the case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal.
d velusamy vs d patchaiammal Case Facts
- The appellant was purportedly married to Lakshmi on June 25, 1980, following Hindu customs. A son was born into the union. Additionally, the petitioner-appellant was employed by Thevanga Higher Secondary School in Coimbatore as a teacher.
- In 2001, the respondent filed a case under section 125 of crpc at the Coimbatore Family High Court, claiming to have been married to the appellant on September 14, 1986, and that they had cohabited in her father’s home for two to three years afterward.
- According to the petition, the appellant moved out of the respondent’s father’s home after two or three years and started living in his hometown, but he continued to pay periodic visits to the respondent’s home.
- According to the claims made, the respondent had been abandoned by the appellant in 1986. Furthermore, the appellant was paid $10,000 per month as a secondary grade teacher, while the respondent had no source of income. Therefore, it was asked that the appellant be ordered to pay the respondent 500 per month in maintenance under section 125 of crpc.
- The respondent also claimed against the appellant that he was married to Lakshmi on June 25, 1980. To support their allegation, the respondent presented the court with documents such as a voter’s identity card, ration card, transfer certificate of the son born out of the marriage, Lakshmi’s hospital discharge certificate, and marriage photos.
- The appellant was married to the respondent, not to a single Lakshmi, as the Family Court determined, and the High Court affirmed this conclusion.
- The Supreme Court received a plea for special leave that was filed in opposition to the Madras High Court’s ruling.
d velusamy vs d patchaiammal Issues
- Is it true that the appellant got married to Lakshmi prior to the respondent’s wedding?
- Does the respondent have a right to maintenance under section 125 of crpc?
d velusamy vs d patchaiammal Judgment
- In a decision that went against natural justice principles, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court and the Family Court Judge had made a legal error by concluding that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi without even providing her with notice.
- This finding needs to be reversed, and the case needs to be sent back to the Family Court so that they can give Lakshmi notice and hear her side of the story before making a new, legally-mandated determination.
- The question of whether the appellant was married to the respondent can only be answered in light of the aforementioned conclusion. If the appellant had been married to Lakshmi, their marriage would not have been deemed lawful absent the dissolution of that union.
- The appellate court further concluded that the ruling of the learned Family Court Judge did not establish whether the respondent and appellant had cohabitated for a duration that was commensurate with marriage. Making a decision in this case required consideration of such a finding.
- As a result, the contested decisions from the High Court and the Coimbatore Family Court Judge were overturned, and the case was remanded to the Family Court Judge so that it may be decided again in accordance with the law and taking into account the aforementioned observations. The appeals were accepted.
The era of socially restrictive conventions is over, and now it’s the norm to live together without being married. In addition to being holy, marriage has a number of societal duties that some couples may find difficult to fulfill.
However, keep in mind that this decision has established requirements that must be met for a relationship to qualify as being in the nature of marriage. To provide justice to women who cohabitated with the man for an extended period of time, were subsequently abandoned, and were labelled as unhappy women, such a qualification is necessary.
Consequently, the rights of women who are in violent intimate relationships or who run the possibility of being in one have been compromised by the Supreme Court’s Velusamy ruling. It ignores the diversity of families and relationships.
Although the law aims to protect women from being vagrants and destitute, the Velusamy ruling has softened the laws against violence against women by focusing solely on rights arising from de facto relationships.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf