Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
All Live-In-relationship Will Not Amount to Be a Relationship in Nature of Marriage - For Benefit of Domestic Violence Act 2010 Sc

All Live-In-relationship Will Not Amount to Be a Relationship in Nature of Marriage - For Benefit of Domestic Violence Act 2010 Sc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8 |Likes:

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2028-2029__OF 2010
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.2273-2274/2010] 
D. Velusamy .. Appellant
 D. Patchaiammal .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T Markandey Katju, J.
1.Leave granted.2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for therespondent although she has been served notice. We had earlier requestedMr. 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 MadrasHigh Court dated 12.10.2009.4.The appellant herein has alleged that he was married according to theHindu Customary Rites with one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980. Out of thewedlock with Lakshmi a male child was born, who is now studying in anEngineering college at Ooty. The petitioner is working as a SecondaryTeacher in Thevanga Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore.5.It appears that the respondent-D. Patchaiammal filed a petition undeSection 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2001 before the Family Court at Coimbatorein which she alleged that she was married to the appellant herein on14.9.1986 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 appellant herein left the house of the respondent’sfather and started living in his native place, but would visit the respondentoccasionally.
6.It is alleged that the appellant herein (respondent in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) deserted the respondent herein (petitioner in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) two or three years after marrying her in 1986. In her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she alleged that she didnot have any kind of livelihood and she is unable to maintain herselwhereas the respondent (appellant herein) is a Secondary Grade Teacher drawing a salary of Rs.10000/- per month. Hence it was prayed that therespondent (appellant herein) be directed to pay Rs.500/- per month asmaintenance to the petitioner.7.In both her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as in hedeposition in the case the respondent has alleged that she was married to theappellant herein on 14.9.1986, and that he left her after two or three years of living together with her in her father’s house.8.Thus it is the own case of the respondent herein that the appellant lefther in 1988 or 1989 (i.e. two or three years after the alleged marriage in1986). Why then was the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed in theyear 2001, i.e. after a delay of about twelve years, shall have to besatisfactorily explained by the respondent. This fact also creates some doubtabout the case of the respondent herein.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->