D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal - 2010 Supreme(SC) 1006

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 1006

MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S.THAKUR
D. Velusamy – Appellant
Versus
D. Patchaiammal – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the meaning of a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? Question 2? Whether a live-in relationship or common-law-like relationship qualifies for the benefit of the Act, and what conditions must be satisfied? Question 3? Whether the declaration of Lakshmi’s marital status without notice to her violates natural justice and how it affects the validity of maintenance under Cr.P.C. Section 125 and DV Act claims?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the meaning of a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

Question 2?

Whether a live-in relationship or common-law-like relationship qualifies for the benefit of the Act, and what conditions must be satisfied?

Question 3?

Whether the declaration of Lakshmi’s marital status without notice to her violates natural justice and how it affects the validity of maintenance under Cr.P.C. Section 125 and DV Act claims?

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondent although she has been served notice. We had earlier requested Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior counsel to assist us as Amicus Curiae in the case, and we record our appreciation of Mr. Bhushan who was of considerable assistance to us.

3. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 12.10.2009.

4. The appellant herein has alleged that he was married according to the Hindu Customary Rites with one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980. Out of the wedlock with Lakshmi a male child was born, who is now studying in an Engineering college at Ooty. The petitioner is working as a Secondary Teacher in Thevanga Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore.

5. It appears that the respondent-D. Patchaiammal filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2001 before the Family Court at Coimbatore in which she alleged that she was married to the appellant herein on 14.9.1986 and since then the appellant herein and she lived together in her father’s house for two or three years. It is alleged in the petition that after two or three years the appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document