2010 (10) TMI 1026 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant was married to the respondent or not? Whether not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the marriage between the appellant and Lakshmi.
2. Validity of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
3. Entitlement of the respondent to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
4. Applicability of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
5. Interpretation of "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the 2005 Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Marriage between the Appellant and Lakshmi:
The appellant claimed to have married Lakshmi on 25.6.1980 according to Hindu Customary Rites and had a son from this marriage. The appellant provided evidence such as ration card, voter identity card, and other documents to support his claim. However, the Family Court and the High Court ruled that the appellant was married to the respondent and not to Lakshmi without issuing notice to Lakshmi or hearing her. The Supreme Court held that this was violative of the rules of natural justice and null and void. Without giving a hearing to Lakshmi, no valid declaration about her marital status could be made, and thus, the finding was set aside.

2. Validity of the Marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent:
The respondent alleged that she married the appellant on 14.9.1986 and lived with him for two or three years before he deserted her. The Family Court and the High Court upheld this claim. However, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2001, after a delay of about twelve years, which raised doubts about her case. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Family Court to issue notice to Lakshmi and re-examine the validity of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.

3. Entitlement of the Respondent to Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.:
Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides maintenance to a wife, including a woman who has been divorced but not remarried. However, if the appellant was already married to Lakshmi, the respondent could not be considered a legally wedded wife and thus not entitled to maintenance under this provision. The Supreme Court held that the respondent could not claim to be the wife of the appellant unless it was established that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi.

4. Applicability of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
The Act provides relief to women in a domestic relationship, including those in a relationship in the nature of marriage. The Supreme Court noted that the definition of "domestic relationship" includes relationships akin to marriage and that the respondent could seek relief under this Act. However, it needed to be established whether the appellant and respondent lived together in a shared household and had a relationship in the nature of marriage.

5. Interpretation of "Relationship in the Nature of Marriage" under the 2005 Act:
The Supreme Court interpreted "relationship in the nature of marriage" as akin to common law marriage, requiring the couple to hold themselves out as spouses, be of legal age to marry, be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, and have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period. The Court emphasized that not all live-in relationships qualify for benefits under the Act. The relationship must meet the criteria mentioned and be proved by evidence. The Court remanded the matter to the Family Court to determine if the appellant and respondent had lived together in a relationship in the nature of marriage.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Family Court and the High Court, remanding the matter to the Family Court to issue notice to Lakshmi, re-examine the validity of the marriages, and determine if the appellant and respondent had a relationship in the nature of marriage. The appeals were allowed.