D. VELUSAMY versus D. PATCHAIAMMAL

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 21-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 706 
D. VELUSAMY 
v. 
D. PATCHAIAMMAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2028-2029 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 21, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T. S. THAKUR, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 125 -
Maintenance - Claim of - Woman seeking maintenance from 
C appellant claiming to be his legally wedded wife - Appellant 
refuting the status of claimant as wife and claiming himself 
to be legally wedded to another woman-'L' - Courts below 
without issuing notice to 'L', granting maintenance to claimant 
holding that appellant was legally wedded to claimant and not 
D to 'L' - On appeal, held: Courts below erred in holding that 
appellant was not married to 'L' without even issuing notice to 
'L' - No finding that claimant and appellant had lived together 
for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship in the 
nature of marriage, whicf1 is essential to decide the case -
E Thus, matter remitted back to family court to decide it afresh 
- Family court to issue notice to 'L' and give fresh finding as 
regard the marriage of appellant and claimant - Protection 
I 
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 . 
. 
Protection of Women frpm Domestic Violence Act, 2005 
F - s. 2(f), 2(s) - Expression 'relationship in the nature of 
marriage' -
Meaning of - Held: Expression is akin to a 
common law marriage - It requires that parties though not 
formally married, must hold themselves out to society as 
being akin to spouses; must be of legal age to marry; must 
G be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including 
being unmarried; and must have voluntarily cohabited for a 
significant period of time - Parties must have a/so lived 
together in a 'shared household' - Merely spending weekends 
together or a one night stand would not make it a 'domestic 
H 
706 
D. VELUSAMY v. D. PATCHAIAMMAL 
707 
relationship' - Alf live-in relationships will not amount to a 
A 
relationship in the nature of marriage -
Words and Phrases. 
Interpretation of statutes -
Held: In the garb of 
interpretation, court cannot change the language of the statute 
nor can it legislate or amend the law. 
8 
The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming 
maintenance from the appellant, in the year 2001. The 
respondent alleged that she was married to the appellant 
in the year 1986; and that the appellant stayed with her C 
at her father's house for two or three years and, 
thereafter, deserted her and started living in his native 
place. The appellant alleged that in the year 1980, he was 
married to 'L' according to the Hindu Customary Rites 
and a male child was born out of the wedlock. The family 
D 
court held that the appellant was married to the 
respondent. The High Court upheld the said findings. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeals. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the 
E 
family court, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Under Section 2(f) of the Protection of 
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the expression 
'domestic relationship' includes not only the relationship 
of marriage but also a relationship 'in the nature of 
F 
marriage'. The meaning of the expression 'a relationship 
in the nature of marriage' has not been defined in the Act. 
The Parliament by the 2005 Act has drawn a distinction 
between the relationship of marriage and a relationsllip 
in tile nature of marriage, and has provided that in either G 
case the person who enters into either relationship is 
entitled to the benefit of the Act. In the Act of 2005, 
Parliament has taken notice of a new social phenomenon 
which has emerged in India known as live-in relationship. 
H 
708 
SUPREME GOURT REPORTS (2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A This new relationship is still rare in India, and is 
sometimes found in big urban cities in India, but it is very 
common in North America and Europe. [Paras 20, 21 and 
22) [716-G-H; 717-A-D) 
B 
S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600 
- referred to. 
c 
Marvin vs. Marvin (1976) 18 C3d660; Taylor vs. Fields 
(1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186; Devaney vs. L' Esperance 195 
N.J., 247 (2008) - referred to 
1.2 Some countries in the world recognize common 
law marriages. A common law marriage, sometimes 
called de facto marriage, or informal marriage is 
recognized in some countries as a marriage though no 
D legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed nor 
civil marriage contract is entered into nor the marriage 
registered in a civil regist

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.