D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal
AIR 2011 SC 479: 2011 Cri LJ 320: 2010 (13) SCR 706: 2010 (11) SCALE 112
Decided on: 21-10-2010;
Hon’ble Judges: Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ., Supreme Court of India
LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP — RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)
Facts
In this case, the respondent, D. Patchaiammal, claimed that she was married to the appellant, D. Velusamy, on 14 September 1986 and that they lived together at her father’s house for 2 to 3 years. According to her, Velusamy later moved back to his hometown but continued to visit her. She had no means of income and filed a claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance of ₹550 per month, pointing out that Velusamy earned ₹10,000 as a teacher at Thevanga Higher Secondary School in Coimbatore.
Velusamy denied the claim and contended that he had been lawfully married to another woman named Lakshmi since 25 June 1980, according to Hindu rites. To support his claim, he produced voter ID cards, ration cards, marriage photographs, a hospital discharge certificate, and their son’s school transfer certificate.
The Family Court ruled in favour of Patchaiammal, recognizing her as Velusamy’s wife. The Madras High Court upheld this decision. Velusamy then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether his marriage to Lakshmi predated the one alleged by Patchaiammal, and challenging the decision on grounds of procedural irregularity, particularly the failure to provide notice to Lakshmi, whose marital status was a central issue in the case.
Issues
The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding:
- Whether Velusamy had a subsisting marriage with Lakshmi prior to the alleged marriage with Patchaiammal.
- Whether Patchaiammal could be considered a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC for the purpose of claiming maintenance.
- Whether the relationship between Velusamy and Patchaiammal constituted a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Arguments
The appellant, Velusamy, maintained that he had already been married to Lakshmi, and therefore any subsequent marriage with Patchaiammal would be void. He also questioned the procedural validity of the lower court’s judgments since Lakshmi was not made a party, nor was she given an opportunity to present her case.
Patchaiammal argued that she had lived with Velusamy in a manner akin to marriage and was dependent on him. She claimed that their cohabitation entitled her to maintenance, and that she had been effectively abandoned.
Observations
The Supreme Court observed that Lakshmi’s role and marital status were critical to the adjudication of the case. Yet, she had neither been notified nor heard by either the Family Court or the High Court. This was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem.
The Court noted that under Section 125 CrPC, the term “wife” refers to a legally wedded or divorced wife. However, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a broader category of “domestic relationships” is recognized. This includes relationships “in the nature of marriage,” which may resemble common-law marriages in countries like the United States.
The Court then laid down criteria for recognizing such a relationship:
- The couple must hold themselves out as akin to spouses in public.
- They must be legally eligible to marry (i.e., not already married to someone else).
- They must have lived together voluntarily for a significant period.
- They must have shared a household as defined in Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act.
The Court stressed that not every live-in relationship qualifies for legal protection; it must closely resemble a marriage.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the Family Court and the Madras High Court. It held that since Lakshmi’s marital status was central to the case, the proceedings had suffered from procedural unfairness.
The case was remanded back to the Family Court with the direction that:
- Lakshmi be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- The evidence concerning Velusamy’s prior marriage to Lakshmi be reassessed.
- A fresh determination be made on whether the relationship between Velusamy and Patchaiammal qualified as a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
Conclusion
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal is a landmark case in the recognition of live-in relationships under Indian law. It clarified the scope of maintenance rights under Section 125 CrPC and drew a crucial distinction between legally recognized marriages and relationships in the nature of marriage. The judgment emphasizes procedural fairness and lays down clear criteria for assessing the validity and nature of domestic relationships. It serves as a foundational precedent for interpreting the rights of women in non-marital cohabitation and reflects the Indian judiciary’s effort to reconcile traditional legal frameworks with contemporary social realities.
