University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online...
Transcript of University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online...
![Page 1: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 1 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
UniversityPressScholarshipOnline
OxfordScholarshipOnline
FamilyLawVolume2:Marriage,Divorce,andMatrimonialLitigationFlaviaAgnes
Printpublicationdate:2012PrintISBN-13:9780198072201PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:September2012DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198072201.001.0001
MatrimonialRightsandObligations
FlaviaAgnes
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198072201.003.0002
AbstractandKeywords
Thischapterestimatesthemovementwithinfamilylawsfromthesacramentalpremisesof‘loveandhonour’,‘obedienceandsubservience’,and‘dutiesandobligations’,tomodernframesof‘rightsandentitlements’.Thevariousnuancesandtheordealofaccessingjusticearedealt.Itthencoverstherighttomatrimonialproperty.Therighttoresideinthematrimonialhomeandtherighttoafinancialsettlementattheterminationofmarriagearethetwodistinctrightswhichareunderlyingthemarriagecontract.Itisnotedthatwomenwillchoosetoleaveeconomicadvantagesduringdivorcesettlementstoobtainsolecustodyoftheirchildren.Theconnectionsbetweenawoman’sclaimofchildcustodyandthedependencyitproduceswhileevolvingaframeworkforpropertydivisionposesachallengetotheequalitymodelofmarriageaspartnership.
Keywords:matrimonialrights,marriage,justice,divorcesettlements,childcustody,matrimonialproperty,matrimonialobligations
![Page 2: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 2 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
SectionA:MaintenanceRightsofWomenThischapterexaminesthreecrucialrightswhichflowfromthecontractofmarriageandassessestheirimpactuponwomenwhenthereisabreakdowninmatrimonialrelationships.
Therightofmaintenance,whichisarightofsubsistenceandsurvival,warrantsanelaboratediscussion.Thisrightisaccessedbyawidesectionofwomenacrossclassandsocialstrata.Sinceitisawellestablishedrightwhichisdeeplyengrainedintoourmatrimonialstatutes,awiderangeofissuessurfaceduringthelegalcontests.Thisistheonlyprovisionforeconomicclaimswithinmarriageand,hence,ishighlycontested.Theimportantingredientsarethehusband’s‘obligation’andthewife’s‘need’,but,situatedwithinthepatriarchalorder,itrevolvesaroundissuessuchas‘matrimonialfault’and‘sexualpurity’.Rightsofchildren,issuesoflegitimacyandpaternity,inheritancerightsofillegitimatechildren,andtheimpactofmen’sbigamyuponwomen’sclaims,arecontextualized.
Apartfromtherightsofwomen,whichistheprimaryconcernofthisbook,incorporatedwithintheprovisionofmaintenancearealsoclaimsofminorchildren,majorunmarrieddaughters,disabledchildren,educationalexpensesofmajorsons,andtherightsofparents.Morerecently,therehavealsobeeninstancesofhusbandsclaimingmaintenancefromtheirwiveswhomaybeinamoresecurefinancialposition.Theimplicationsofthisprovisionuponwomenisalsoexamined.Mostchallengingamongtheproceduralaspectsofthelitigationistheprocessofenforcingadecree,orinotherwords,executionproceedings.Anattemptismadeinthissectiontoexposethereadertothevariousnuancesandtheordealofaccessingjustice.Theseissuesareaddressedinthesecondsection.
Thethirdsectiondealswithyetanotherimportanteconomicrightwhichaffectswomeninconflictmarriages,therighttomatrimonialproperty.Thisrightcanbefurtherdividedintoarighttoassetsandarighttoshelter.Though,therighttoshelterisimplicitinthemarriagecontract,itwasnotclearlyarticulatedinmatrimonialstatutes.Devoidofstatutoryrecognition,this(p.118) righthasevolvedthroughjudicialinterventions.Therighttodivisionofthematrimonialhomeandjointassetsisalsobeingrecognized,tentativelyandhesitantly,byourcourtsinafewcasesonthebasisofcontribution.
SinceIndiafollowstheEnglishcommonlawtraditionofseparatepropertyregime,marriagedoesnotimpactpropertyrelationsandthecourtsdonothavethepowertoorderdivisionofallmatrimonialassets.Thenotionofcommunityofpropertyorjointmatrimonialassetshasnotyetbeenawardedstatutoryrecognition.Thisimportantaspectofmatrimoniallitigationrequireslegislativeinterventioninordertosafeguardwomen’sfinancialinterestsupondivorce.Hence,thetheoreticalframeworkofthisright,theruleswhichgovernthedivisionofproperty,andthedevelopmentofthisrightinEnglandandothercommonlawtraditioncountries,arebrieflysketchedout.
Women’srighttocustodyoftheirchildrenandconcernoveraccessrightsarediscussedinthefourthsection.Thissectiontracesthetransitionfromthelegalmaxim‘fatheras
![Page 3: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 3 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
naturalguardian’to‘bestinterestofthechildisparamount’andthedoctrinalshiftfromfather’s‘rights’toparental‘dutiesandobligations’.
TheRighttoMaintenance
Maintenance:AnOverview
Maintenancecanbeclaimedbywives(forthemselvesaswellastheirchildren)underallmatrimonialstatutes(exceptundertheDissolutionofMuslimMarriagesAct)asanancillary1reliefinmatrimonialproceedings.Therightcanbeclaimedonlyasasubsidiaryreliefwhileclaimingaprimarymatrimonialreliefsuchasdivorce,judicialseparation,annulmentofmarriage,orrestitutionofconjugalrights.Thereareotherstatutes/legalprovisionswhichgrantwomen,children,parents,andwidoweddaughters-in-law,anindependentrighttomaintenanceaccordingtotheHinduAdoptionandMaintenanceAct,1956,theuncodifiedMuslimLaw,Section125oftheCriminalProcedureCode(Cr.PC),etc.TheProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct,2005(PWDVA,alsoreferredtoasDVA),providesanadditionalavenueforwomentoclaimmaintenanceandcompensationfromtheirhusbandsandliveinpartners.Underthese(p.119)provisions,maintenancecanbeobtainedwithoutthenecessityofinitiatingproceedingsforaprimarymatrimonialrelief.
Table2.1indicatesthevariousstatutoryprovisionsunderwhichtherighttomaintenancecanbeclaimed.
Table2.1LegalProvisionsGoverningMaintenanceClaimsCategory HMA SMA DA ML PMDA HAMA Cr.PC MWA DVAWives S.25 S.
37Uncodified S.40 S.18 S.
125S.3/4 S.
20MinorChildren S.26 S.38 S.
41Uncodified S.49 S.20 S.
125S.3 S.
20Parents S.
125S.20*
Husbands S.24/25
S.40
Widoweddaughters-in-law
S.19 S.20
AdultDaughters S.20
InterimMaintenance
S.24 S.36 S.36
Uncodified S.39 S.18 S.125
S.23
Notes:HMA–HinduMarriageAct,SMA–SpecialMarriageAct,DA–DivorceAct,ML–MuslimLaw,PMDA–ParsiMarriageandDivorceAct,HAMA–HinduAdoptionandMaintenanceAct,MWA–MuslimWomen(ProtectionofRightsuponDivorce)Act,PWDVA–ProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct.
![Page 4: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 4 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
*OnlythemotherisentitledtomonetarycompensationunderDVA
MaintenanceasaMeasureofSocialJusticeThelegalprovisionofmaintenanceisreflectiveofasocialobligationwhichthestatecastsupontheeconomicallystrongermembersofthefamilytoprovideshelterandsustenancetoweakermembers,thatis,women,children,theelderly,andthedisabled.TheprovisionforadditionalsafeguardsandspecialprivilegesfordisadvantagedgroupsisgroundedinArticle15(3)ofourConstitution.2TheSupremeCourt,inCaptainRameshChandraKaushal3v.VeenaKaushal,commentedthatSection125ofCr.PCisameasureofsocialjusticewhichisspeciallyenactedtoprotectwomenandchildrenandfallswithintheconstitutionalsweepofArticle15(3)reinforcedbyArticle39.4InBalanNairv.BhavaniAmmaValalamma,5theKeralaHighCourtcommentedthatthoughprovisionsofSection125ofCr.PCalsobenefitsthefather,themainbeneficiaryoftheprovisionarewomenandchildrenindistress,andtheprovisionisconsistentwithArticle15(3)oftheConstitutionasameasureofensuringsocialjustice.
Theprovisionofmaintenanceneedstobegroundedwithintheconstitutionalparadigmofensuringsocialjustice.Itisbasedonthesocialobligationofpreventingdestitutionandvagrancy.TheSupremeCourt,inBhagwanDuttav.KamalaDevi,6hasexplainedtherationalegoverningtheprovisionofmaintenanceunderCr.PCinthefollowingwords:‘Section488,7whichprovidesforthemaintenanceofwivesandchildrenisameasuretopreventvagrancy,oratleasttopreventitsconsequences.Itisintendedtofulfilasocialpurpose:tocompelamantoperformthemoralobligationwhichheowestosocietywithrespecttohiswifeandchildren.’InVimalav.Veeraswamy,8theSupremeCourtnotedthatbyprovidingsimpleandspeedybutlimitedrelief,theprovisionseekstoensurethattheneglectedwifeandchildrenarenotrendereddestituteand,thereby,driventoalifeofvagrancy,immorality,andcrime,fortheirsubsistence.
Morerecently,in2008,theSupremeCourtinChaturbhujv.SitaBhai9explainedtheobjectiveoftheprovisionofmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCinthefollowingwords:‘Theobjectiveofmaintenanceproceedingsisnottopunishapersonforhispastneglectbuttopreventvagrancy,bycompellingthosewhocanprovidesupporttothosewhoareunabletosupportthemselves,andwhohaveamoralclaimtosupport.Itprovidesaspeedyremedyforthesupplyoffood,clothing,andshelter,tothedesertedwife.Itgiveseffecttofundamentalrightsandthenaturaldutiesofamantomaintainhiswife,children,andparents,whentheyareunabletomaintainthemselves.’Similarly,inKomalamAmmav.KumaraPillaiRaghavanPillai,10whichwasalsoreportedin2008,theSupremeCourt(p.120) explainedthat‘maintenance’,undertheHinduAdoptionandMaintenanceAct,includesprovisionsforfood,clothing,residence,education,andmedicaltreatment,andemphasizedthatitmustincludeaprovisionforresidence.Themaintenanceprovidedshouldenablethewifetoliveinamannerthatsheisaccustomedtoinhermatrimonialhome.
Ascanbeobservedfromthesejudicialcomments,theprovisionofmaintenanceiscrucial
![Page 5: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 5 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
towomenwhoareinconflictmarriages,andtodesertedanddestitutewomen.ItisobviousthattherightofawomantomaintenanceneedstobelocatedwithincitizenshipclaimsenshrinedinourConstitution.Withinthehistoricaloriginsoftheinstitutionofmarriagebasedonapatriarchalsocialorder,foravastmajorityofwomen,marriageresultsineconomicdependency.Therolesandresponsibilitiesassignedtowomenwithinmarriagecompelmanytogiveuptheirjobsorsacrificetheircareerstomeetthedemandsoftheirmaritalobligations.
Duringmatrimonialconflict,atrumpcardoftenusedbythehusbandistowithdrawfinancialsupporttothewife.Further,wheneitherpartyoptsforadivorcetobringanendtoaconflictmarriage,itisthewomanwhofaceseconomichardshipandhastoengageinalonglitigationtoenforcehercrucialrighttoeconomicsubsistence.Usually,theissueofmaintenance/economicsettlementbecomesthemostcontestedaspectofanymatrimonial/divorceproceedings.
Thenon-recognitionofawoman’scontributiontothemarriageandhomereduceshertoastateofdestitutionwhenthemarriagebreaksdown.Neitherthelawnorsocietyrecognizesherroleasahomemakerinconcretemonetaryterms.Irrespectiveofthefactthatawomanhaslookedafterthehome,nursedandraisedherchildren,andinaninvisiblemannercontributedtothefamilysavings,whenthemarriagebreaksdown,thelawrecognizesonlythehusband’stitletothefamilyassets.Thematrimonialhome,assets,savings,andsecurities,aredeemedtheexclusivepropertyoftheman.Thewomen,who,forthedurationoftheirmarriage,livedashomemakers,oftenfindthemselveswithoutsignificantpersonalpropertyorasteadyincometosustainthemselvesduringthedivorceandinthepost-divorcephaseoftheirlife.Formostwomen,re-entryintothehighlycompetitivejobmarketisalmostimpossible.Evenwhentheydoenter,duetoconstraintsofage,experience,andqualifications,theirearningswillbefarlowerthantheircounterparts.
Allthesefactorspushwomenfromanaffluentclassintoalowereconomicbracketandrenderwomenofthelowerclass,destitute.Thisisaviolationoftheirconstitutionalguaranteeofarighttolifewithdignity.Thelawofmaintenancehasemergedasafeebleattempttoremedythismaladyandprovidewomenwithsomesemblanceofeconomicsustenanceandsecuritywhenthemarriagebreaksdown.Admittedly,theprovisionisbasedonthepatriarchalpremiseofaprotectionistapproachtowardswomen.Weneedtoshiftthediscoursebeyondtheprotectionistparameterandlocateitwithintheconstitutionalschemeofcitizenshipclaimsofarighttolifewithdignityandasameasureofsocialjustice.
Asthissectionunfolds,securinganorderofadequatemaintenancecanbeanextremelyhumiliatingexperience.Sincetheclaimofawoman’seconomicsustenancewithinthepatriarchalorderispittedagainsthersexualconduct,allegationsofadulteryandimmoralityareconstantlyhurledagainstwomenduringlitigation.Thiscanextendfurthertoadenialofthemarriageitselfand,consequentially,thelegitimacyandeventhepaternityofthechildren.Sexualcodesandthemoralitydictatesofapatriarchalmarriageoftengetentangledwiththeeconomicclaimsofwomen.InthecaseofMuslimwomen,
![Page 6: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 6 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
theirrights(p.121) getfurtherentwinedwithincommunalbiasesanddeliberatemisinterpretationsofIslamiclaw.
Itisinthiscontextthatstatutorylawandjudicialinterpretationsmustleaninfavourofdestitutewomenandvulnerablechildren,bymovingawayfromtherubricofformalequalityofArticle14towardsthesubstantiveequalityofArticle15(3)withintheconstitutionalscheme,inordertosetrightahistoricalwrong.
Inviewofthehighquotientofsexualmoralitywhichengulfsthequestionofmaintenance,thecategorizationofcasesundervariousheadingsissuperficialandisdoneonlyforconvenience’ssake.Theissuesconstantlyoverlapandlinesgetblurredastheyareintrinsicallyinterwoventoformthecomplexwholeofthefabricoflife.Thenotionofaguiltywifemayspillovertoadisputeoverpaternity.Validityofmarriageimpactstheissueoflegitimacyofchildrenandmayalsoadverselyaffectsuccessionrights.Casesdiscussedunderthesectiontitled‘ProlongedCohabitationandPresumptionofMarriage’,concernstheclaimsofwomeninbigamousmarriages.Hence,theattempthasbeentomerelyexposethereadertotrendswithinanadversariallegalsystem.Whatisindeedstrikingisthateveryfactualandimaginarylegalployisresortedtoduringprotractedcourtbattlesbut,increasingly,thecourtsareabletoseethroughthemanipulationsandareabletopiercetheveneeroffalseclaimswhileupholdingwomen’srights.Butthefalseandfrivolousinterventionsentanglewomenincircuitouslegalrigmaroleswhicharetimeconsuming,financiallydraining,andemotionallycharged.
Despitetheprogressiveinterpretationsandinnovativelegalmaxims,thepathtojusticehasnotprogressedinalineartrajectory.Thereisagreatdealofjudiciallatitudewhichallowscontradictoryverdictstoemergeonthesameissue,notjustbetweenvarioushighcourtsbutalsowithinthesamecourt.Inadditiontothefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase,thelegalstrategyadoptedbylawyers,thequalityoflegalrepresentation,andthepresidingjudge’snotionofjusticeandequity,playacrucialroleinthefinaloutcome.Thelegalprecedentshavetobecontextualisedwithinthislitigationreality.
Thissectiontracesthechallengesandmilestonesinwomen’sstruggleforsurvivalwhilepursuingtheirlegalclaimofmaintenance.
MaintenanceUnderPersonalLaws/MatrimonialStatutesUndermatrimoniallaw,thetermalimonyisalsousedtodenotemaintenance.ThistermisderivedfromEnglishlaw.Intheeventofseparation,thewifecouldsueherhusbandforalimonyifthehusbandrefusedtomakeafinancialarrangementtoenablehertolivealifecorrespondingtoherhusband’ssocialstatus.Thehusband’srefusaltomaintainhiswifewasconstruedasaninjurytoher,theremedytowhichcouldbesoughtbycompellingthehusbandtopayforheralimonyormaintenancethroughecclesiasticalcensures.11
ThelawofmaintenanceisbasedontheancientEnglishprincipalofunityofpersonswithinmarriage.Uponmarriage,thehusbandbecamethelegalguardianofthewife’spersonandproperty.Thewifewaslegallycompelledtoassignherpropertiestoherhusband.12Sincewomencouldneitherworknorownproperty,intheeventofdesertiontheywould
![Page 7: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 7 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
berendereddestitute.Inordertoavertthissituation,thehusbandwaslegallycompelledtoprovidemaintenancetohiswife.
Later,whendivorcebecameacceptable,theMatrimonialCausesAct,1857,andthematrimonialcourtmandatedthatthedecreeofdivorcewasconditionalonthehusbandsetting(p.122) asidesomepropertyforthewifeaspartofheralimony.TheMatrimonialCausesAct,1886,conferredpoweronthecivilcourtstopassordersdirectingthehusbandtopaythewifeareasonableweeklyormonthlysumasmaintenance.Thehusbandwasobligatedtomaintainhiswifeandpayforherexpenses,notonlyduringtheirmaritallifebutevenafterthedivorce,solongasshedidnotremarry.TheprovisionsofmaintenanceunderIndianmatrimonialstatutesandunderSection125ofCr.PCarebasedonthisprinciple.
AncientHindulawanduncodifiedMuslimlawalsocastanobligationonthehusbandtomaintainhiswife.TherightundertheHindulawwascodifiedin1946byenactingtheHinduMarriedWoman’sRighttoSeparateResidenceandMaintenanceAct.Subsequently,thiswasincorporatedintotheHinduAdoptionandMaintenanceActof1956(HAMA).TheuncodifiedMuslimlawrecognizedthewife’srighttomaintenanceduringthesubsistenceofmarriageandduringtheiddatperiod.But,sinceMuslimmarriageswerecontractualandsincethewomanwasentitledtoremarry,Muslimlawdidnotcastanobligationonthehusbandforpostdivorcemaintenance.Buthewasrequiredtopaythewifea‘fairandreasonable’settlementatthetimeofdivorce,inadditiontosettlinghermehrdues.Thisrightreceivedlegalrecognitionthroughthestatutoryenactment,MuslimWomen(ProtectionofRightsuponDivorce)Act,1986,(MWA).13
Aclaimformaintenancecanbemadeduringthesubsistenceofmarriage,atthetimeofinitiatingadivorce,oranyothermatrimonialrelief,orevenafterobtainingadecreeofdivorce.Anorderofpermanentalimonyandmaintenanceasancillaryreliefindivorceproceedingscanbemadeduringthepassingofadecreeofdivorce,orevensubsequently.Permanentalimonyisawardedbasedontheincomeandpropertyoftheparties,othereconomicliabilitiesofthespouses,aswellasthespecialcircumstancesofthecase.Partiescanalsoenterintoagreementswithrespecttomaintenancethroughseparationagreementsorthroughconsentagreementswhileobtainingadecreeofdivorcebymutualconsent.
Sincemaintenanceisanancillaryrelief,thesamecannotbeclaimedifaprimarymatrimonialreliefsuchasdivorceorannulmentofmarriagehasnotbeenprayedfor.Insuchasituation,aHinduwomancanfileunderHAMA,butforwomenfromtheMuslimminoritycommunity,theonlyavenueistoclaimmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.
Interimmaintenancecanbeclaimedduringthelitigationprocessunderalllegalprovisionswhichentitleawomantoclaimmaintenance.Theseproceedingsaresummaryinnatureandhavetobedecidedattheearliest,toensurealevelplayinggroundforthewife,andsothatshehasthemeanstosurviveduringthelitigationperiod.Evenifdivorceproceedingsareinitiatedbythehusbandonthegroundofthewife’smisconduct,the
![Page 8: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 8 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
courtcannotdismissthewife’sapplicationformaintenance.ThecourthasinherentpowerstoawardinterimmaintenanceunderSection18ofHAMA,eventhoughitisnotstatutorilyprovided.InterimmaintenancecanalsobeawardedunderSection125ofCr.PC.14
Maintenancemaybepaidasalumpsumsettlementorbywayofperiodicinstalments.Lumpsumsettlementsareonetimepaymentswhichareusuallymadeatthetimeofthedivorce.Periodicpaymentsmaybesecuredwithachargeonthepropertyorunsecured.Themostcommonpracticeofperiodicpaymentsisbywayofmonthlyinstalmentstocatertotherequirementsofthesalariedclass.
Table2.2RelevantSectionsofCr.PCRelevantSections RelevantProvisionsSection125 Orderformaintenanceofwives,children,andparentsSection126 JurisdictionandProcedureSection127 Alterations/ModificationsoftheOrderSection128 EnforcementofOrder
(p.123) MaintenanceUnderSection125ofCr.PCTheprovisionsrelatingtomaintenanceundertheCr.PCarelocatedinChapterIX(Sections125–8),butthepopulartermusedwhilereferringtothisprovisionismaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.Hence,thistermisusedthroughoutthissection.Thisprovisionisuniformlyapplicabletowives,children,andparents.
Thepurposeoftheseprovisionsistopreventdestitutionandvagrancyandnottoprovideeconomicsecuritytodependents.Sincetheproceedingsaresummary,adestitutewifecanavailofthisremedywithouthavingtofileformatrimonialrelief.Though,situatedwithintherealmofcriminallaw,theprovisionisviewedmoreasaquasicivilproceeding.15
Whileitprovidedaspeedyremedyforthelowerstrata,womenfromtheupperstrataofsocietydidnotavailofanybenefitfromthisprovisionastheamountawardedwasmeagreandfarbelowtheirneeds.In1898,whenthisremedywasfirstintroduced,theamountwhichcouldbeclaimedwasonlyRs100.In1955,tochangewiththetimes,theceilingwasraisedtoRs500,but,thereafter,itremainedunchangedfornearlyhalfacenturyeventhoughthebuyingpowerofRs500dwindleddrastically.NoeffortsweremadetoraisetheceilingdespiterecommendationsbytheLawCommission.16TheonlytwostatesthatbroughtanamendmenttothissectionwereWestBengal17andMaharashtra,18wheretheamountwasenhancedfromRs500toRs1,500.
Withthesettingupofthefamilycourt,thejurisdictionshiftedfromtheMagistrate’scourttothefamilycourt,buttheamountsawardedcontinuedtobemeagre.Finallyin2001,throughaCentralamendmenttoSection125ofCr.PC,theceilingwasremoved.19Hence,thereiscurrentlynolimitontheamountthatcanbeclaimedunderthissection
![Page 9: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 9 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(K.D.Sehgal,Advocate,Chairman,PublicInterestLitigationCellv.UnionofIndia).20
TheprovisionofmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCofferscertainadvantagesasopposedtopersonallaw.Sinceitisaprovisionunderthecriminalstatute,itdoesnotdeterminethematrimonialstatusoftheparties.Hence,thecourtsareempoweredtoawardmaintenanceevenwhenawomanisunabletoprovehermarriage.21Courtsalsohavethepowerofarrestinexecutionproceedings,whichactsasadeterrentagainstthenon-paymentofmaintenance.22
Incontrast,underthecivil/matrimonialstatutes,thoughhusbandscanbearrestedfor(p.124) non-paymentofmaintenance,itisconstruedasacivilimprisonmentandtheburdenfallsonthewifetopayforthecostofcivilimprisonment.Thisisparadoxical,asitdefeatstheverypurposeofawardingmaintenancetoadestitutewomanknockingthedoorsofthecourtforapaltrysumofmaintenanceandcastsanadditionalburdenuponher.TheadvantageofthecriminalprovisionwasoffsetbytheceilingofRs500.23Butaftertheremovaloftheceiling,courtsareatlibertytoawardmaintenancecommensuratewiththeeconomicstatusofthehusbandandtheneedsofthewife.Thishasprovedtobehighlyadvantageous,notjusttothewomanbutalsotoherchildrenandtheelderlyasonecandiscernagradualupwardtrendintheamountsawardedasmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.
AftertheenactmentoftheMuslimWomen(ProtectionofRightsuponDivorce)Act,1986,therightofadivorcedMuslimwomantomaintenancehasbeenplacedunderthisstatute.Aspertheprovisionsofthisenactment,adivorcedMuslimwomanisentitledtomaintenancefortheIddatperiodandforafairandreasonablesettlementforlife.ThisstipulationentitlesadivorcedMuslimwomantoclaimlumpsumsettlementsforherfuture.Onthepositiveside,thisprovisionrelievesthedivorcedMuslimwomanoftheliabilitytoexecutetheorderofarecurringmonthlymaintenance.Butonthenegativeside,apoorMuslimhusbandmaynothavetheresourcestopayanadequateamountasalumpsumsettlement,andthedivorcedwifemaybecompelledtoacceptameagreamountasalifetimesettlement.24
Maintenance/CompensationUndertheProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct,2005TheProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct(PWDVAorDVA),enactedin2005,offersyetanothereconomicremedytowomenandgirls.Wives,sisters,mothers,oranyotherfemalerelative,livinginasharedhouseholdinadomesticrelationship,includingawomaninaninformalrelationship,canapproachthecourtforawiderangeofrelief.Thisincludesprotectionorders,maintenanceorders,custodyorders,andcompensationorders.Whiletheprovisionofmaintenanceordersenablesthewomantoclaimmaintenance,theprovisionofcompensationordersenableshertoclaimdamagesforinjuriessufferedduetodomesticviolence.
Thisprovisionhasprovedtobehighlybeneficialforwomenseekinganorderofinjunctionagainsttheirhusbands/partnersforprotectionagainstdomesticviolenceandforprotectingtheirrighttothematrimonialhome/sharedresidence.Womenwhoarenot
![Page 10: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 10 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
abletoprovetheirmarriage,orareinanon-marriageorlive-inrelationship,havealsobenefitedfromthisprovision.25
MatrimonialMisconductandRighttoMaintenance
HistoricallyunderEnglishlaw,onlyvirtuousorgoodwomenwereentitledtomaintenance.Ifahusbandobtainedadivorceonthegroundofthewife’sadultery,cruelty,ordesertion,shewasdeniedmaintenanceandattimeseventhecustodyofherchildren.ThereisampleevidenceofthisphenomenoninbothEnglishandIndianmatrimonialjurisprudence.
(p.125) Forexample,inDaileyv.Dailey,26reflectingtheoldEnglishposition,itwasheldthatawifewhowasguiltyofadultery,desertion,cruelty,oranyothermatrimonialmisconduct,wasnotentitledtoreceivemaintenance.Atbest,shecouldbeawardedacompassionateallowancetosaveherfromutterdestitution.Endorsingtheviewoftheecclesiasticalcourtthatwiveswhohadviolatedtheirvows‘shallbefedwiththebreadofafflictionandwiththewaterofadversity’(Manbyv.Scott),27inSardariLalv.Veshano28itwasheldthat‘awomanoncedivorcedonthegroundofunchastityshouldbelefttotheresourcesofherimmortality.’
TheCalcuttaHighCourtinSachindrav.Bammala29hadcommented:‘Unchastityonthepartofawoman(andsexualintercoursebyamanwithawomanoutsidewedlock)isasinagainsttheethicsofmatrimonialmoralityinthiscountry.’Thejudge,whileconcedingthatmorallawisnotthecivillawofthecountry,madethesweepingassumptionthatthemeetingplaceoflawandmoralitywasSection25oftheHinduMarriageActandSection18oftheHinduAdoptionandMaintenanceAct.Thisapparentlyjustifiedthedenialofmaintenancetothewife,lettinghersurviveontheresourcesofherimmortality.
ACompassionateApproachTowardsthe‘Guilty’WifeFromthe1980s,onecandiscernagradualshifttoamorecompassionateapproachtowardswomenwhoareaccusedofmatrimonialfaultindivorceproceedings.Itisnowanacceptedjudicialviewthatmerelybecausethehusbandhasobtainedadecreeofdivorceongroundsofthewife’scrueltyoranyothermatrimonialfault,thesamecannotbeusedtodepriveheroftherighttomaintenance.
In1985,theBombayHighCourt,inGulabJagdusaKakwanev.KamalGulabKakwane,30heldthatmerelybecausethehusbandhadobtainedadecreeofdivorceonthegroundofthewife’sadulterydoesnotdisentitleherfromclaimingmaintenance.In1986,theGujaratHighCourt,inDwarkadasGurmukhidasv.Bhanuben,31whileupholdingawoman’srighttointerimmaintenancestated:‘UnderSection24oftheHinduMarriageAct,itistherightofthewifewhoisunabletosupportherselftogetmaintenance.Maintenanceshouldbemadeavailabletoherwithoutanyreferencetoherconduct.’In1990,theAndhraPradeshHighCourt,inT.RajaRaov.T.Neelamma,32heldthatthegroundofadulteryindivorceproceedingsipsofactodoesnotdisentitlethewifefromclaimingmaintenance,andthewifeisentitledtoclaimmaintenancetillsheremarries.
Inacasereportedin1986,ShantiDeviv.RaghavPrakash,33thewifehadburnedthe
![Page 11: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 11 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
husband’sthesis.Thehusbandfiledapetitionfordivorceonthegroundofthewife’scruelty.Thecourtawardedadecreeinthehusband’sfavourbutawardedRs200permonthasmaintenancetothewife.Inanappeal,theRajasthanHighCourtheldthatinviewofthefactthatthedivorcedwifeisacursedhumanbeing,abhorredbysociety,andilliterateaswell,shewouldnotbeabletosupportherself.Remarriagewouldalsobeadifficultandfarfetchedproposition.Therefore,thecourtdecreedthatalimonyshouldbeasubstantialreliefforherandraisedtheamountfromRs200toRs350.Although(p.126) thiscanbeconstruedasapositiveruling,italsoreflectsthecontemptuousattitudeofthejudiciaryandsocietytowardsdivorcedwomen.
InRe:SamsuddinMohalat,34thehusbandchallengedthemaintenanceofRs250awardedtothewifeonthegroundthatsheislivinginadultery.Rejectinghisplea,theCalcuttaHighCourtcommentedthattheonlyintentionofthehusbandinmakingsuchallegationsistocausedeathbystarvation.Thecourtheldthatmaintenanceneednotbebasedonlawbutonhumanrightsanddirectedthelowercourttoenhancetheamount.Italsodecreedthatifthehusbanddoesnotpay,hispropertyshouldbeattachedandsoldtosavethewifefromdeath.
AmorerecentandsignificantrulinginthecontextofthepresentdiscussionisUsharaniLenkav.PanigrahiSubhashChandraDash.35Inhispetitionfordivorce,thehusbandmadeeverypossibleallegationagainsthiswife.Heallegedthatthewifewasimpregnatedbyanotherpersonandhadterminatedthepregnancyjustbeforethemarriage.Hence,themarriagecouldbeannulledonthegroundsofSection12(1)(d)(pre-marriagepregnancy)ofHMA.Healsoallegedthatthewifehadapermanentgynaecologicalproblemonaccountofwhichsherefusedtohavesexualrelationswithhimand,therefore,claimedthatSection12(1)(a)(nonconsummationofmarriageowingtoimpotencyoftherespondent)couldalsobeinvokedtoannulthemarriage.Healsoaccusedherofcrueltyanddesertion.Thecourtheldthattheconductofthewifeamountedtomentalcrueltyandthehusbandwasgrantedadecreeofdivorce.Butthehusband’spleathatthewifeisnotentitledtomaintenance,assheistheguiltyspouse,wasrejected.ThecourtnotonlyupheldherclaimformaintenancebutincreasedtheamountofpermanentalimonyfromRs40,000toRs1,00,000onthegroundthatitwouldbejust,adequateandreasonable.
Distinguishing‘LivinginAdultery’from‘OccasionalLapsesofVirtue’Despitethispositiveshiftinjudicialapproach,theterrainofmaintenancelitigationcontinuestobecontentious.Anotionstillprevailsthatanadulterouswomanisnotentitledtomaintenance.Hence,thereisaconstantefforttodefeatthewoman’sclaimbymakingbaselessallegationsandcastingaspersiononhercharacter.Twosub-clausesunderSection125Cr.PCcontributetothisconfusion:
(4)Nowomanshallbeentitledtoreceiveanallowanceifsheislivinginadultery.(5)Onproofthatanywifeinwhosefavouranorderhasbeenmadeunderthissectionislivinginadultery,themagistrateshallcanceltheorder.
Thesestipulationsprovidethearmourforhusbandstoentanglewomeninviciousand
![Page 12: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 12 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
dilatorylitigationoverapittanceofmaintenance.Butthedefenceisavailabletothehusbandonlyifheisabletoprovethatthewifeislivinginadultery.Itisnotavailableifitisprovedthatthewifewasleadinganunchastelifepriortohermarriage.Onlypostmarriageadulterousconductisrelevant.Awifecanonlybedeniedmaintenanceifsheislivinginadulteryanditcanbeestablishedthatsheisbeingmaintainedbytheadulterer.
InMahalingamPillaiv.Amsavalli,36itwasheldthatawomanwhoisaccusedofadulteryisentitledtoareasonableamountofmaintenanceasamatterofright,exceptincaseswherethehusbandisabletoprovethatthewifeisbeingsupportedbythepersonsheiscommitting(p.127) adulterywith.InSandhav.Narayan,37itwasexplainedthatthereisanimportantdistinctionbetweenapersonwhoislivinginadulteryandwhohasmerelycommittedadultery.Livinginadulterydenotesacontinuouscourseofconductandnotisolatedactsofimmorality.InBaishnabCharanJenav.RitaraniJena,38itwasheldthatasingleactofunchastityorafewlapsesofvirtuewillnotdisentitleawifefromclaimingmaintenancefromherhusbandunderSection125Cr.PC.
InLaxmanNaikv.LalitaNaik,39thecourtclarifiedthatwhileasingleactofadulteryissufficientforthepurposeofjudicialseparationundermatrimoniallaw,forthepurposeofawardingmaintenanceunderSection125Cr.PC,merelyprovingoneormoreinstancesofsuchlapsesisnotsufficienttoabsolvethehusbandfromhisliabilitytopaymaintenance.
Theaboverulingsclarifythatthedenialofmaintenanceisnotintendedasapunishmentforadultery.Rather,itisinthecontextofacontinuedandstablerelationshipwiththepersonsheisallegedtohavecommittedadulterywith.Thestandardofproofrequired,toproveadulteryonthepartofthewife,ishighinordertopreventthisprovisionfrombeingmisusedbyhusbandsasameansofescapingfromthelegalobligationofmaintainingtheirwives(S.S.Manickamv.ArputhaBhavaniRajan).40
Facedwithanumberofcasesinvolvingfalseallegationsofadulterybyhusbandsinproceedingsformaintenance,thecourtinBaishnabCharanJenav.RitaraniJena41heldthatsuchbaselessallegationsbythehusbandandhisfamilymemberswillentitlethewifetoliveseparatelyandclaimmaintenancefromherhusband.InKamalKishorev.StateofUP,42thecourtreprimandedthehusbandformakingrecklesschargesofimmoralityagainsthiswife.InMaheshChandrav.Addl.CivilJudge,43theAllahabadHighCourtheldthatthehusbandhadcausedincalculableharmtothewifebytermingherawomanofloosemoralsandawardedRs20,000asexemplarycosts.Thefactsofthiscaseareratherabsurd.Whenthewife,whowashearingimpaired,filedformaintenance,inordertocreateevidenceofimmoralcharacter,thehusbandrequestedafriendtofileafalseandfrivolouscaseofrestitutionofconjugalrightsagainsthiswife,andlaterusedtheseasproofofherimmorality.InMaheshv.Madhu,44thewifewasdrivenoutofthematrimonialhousewhenshewasthreemonthspregnant.Later,thehusbandmadeallegationsofadulteryagainstheranddisputedthepaternityofthechild.ThecourtdirectedthehusbandtopayacompensationofRs100,000alongwithinterestat6percentperannumfromthedateoffilingthesuittillitsrealization.Thecourtcommentedthattheallegationsarebasedonillusionratherthanreality.
![Page 13: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 13 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Aswecanobserve,thecourtstakeaseriousviewofbaselessallegationsofimmoralitywhichareadvancedonlyasalegalploytoavoidthepaymentofmaintenancetowivesandtohumiliatethemincourtroomsduringproceedings.
AninterestingcommentonthisissueisfoundinArunKumarv.MeenuKumar.45Inthisruling,S.RavindraBhatJ.oftheDelhiHighCourt,warnedthelowerjudiciarytoadoptacautiousapproachandrestrainfrommakingpresumptionsonthebasisofallegationsofadultery.HisLordship’scommentsonthisprovisionareilluminatingandcontributesubstantially(p.128) towardsusheringanewgender-justlegalorder,awayfromconventionalpatriarchaldictates.Followingisanexcerptfromthisruling:
ThoughSection125Cr.PCisinthenatureofawelfaremeasure,andperhapsfallswithinthedescriptionof‘specialprovision’underArticle15(3)oftheConstitution,theexceptionunderSection125(4)isloadedwithgenderunequalterms,againstthewoman.Hence,itmustbeinvokedwithduecareandcircumspection.TheenactingpartofSection125,whichentitlesawomantomaintenance,makesnodistinctionwhetherthecauseforherapproachingthecourtisadulteryorinfidelityofthehusband.Yet,thepossibleeffect,viz,estrangementandthesituationofherlivinginadulteryissoughtasagroundtodenythatwelfaremeasure.Withoutexaminingthelogicofthisenforcementofmoralitythroughthelegalprocess,whichhastoreceiveawiderdebate,whatcanbesaidisthatthecourtshouldbeloathtorushtoconclusionsoraprioriassumptions,sinceSection125(4)enactsanexception.Itshouldbesatisfiedaboutthesoundnessofsuchachargeandcannotbecontenttoelevateallegationsintofindings(Para13pp.824–5).
Incaseswherethehusbandisabletoprovetothecourtthatthewifehasbeenlivinginadultery,thecourtsareboundtodenyhermaintenance(Angooriv.PhoolKumar).46InSubalChandraSahav.PritikanaSaha,47thewomanhadlefthermatrimonialhomeandwasfoundlivingwithanothermaninrentedpremises.Thecourtheldthattheirintentiontocontinuelivingwitheachothercannotbebrushedasideandheldthatthewomanwas‘livinginadultery’withinthescopeofSection125(4)ofCr.PC.Morerecently,inSukroDeviv.StateofJharkhand,48itwasprovedthatthewifehadvoluntarilylefthermatrimonialhome,withoutreasonablecauseorexcuse,andwaslivingwithanotherman.Hence,thefindingofthetrialcourtandrevisioncourt,thatitwasnotanisolatedinstanceofalapseincharacteronthepartofwife,wasupheldbythehighcourt.
Evenaftermaintenancehasbeenawarded,ifthewifeislivinginadultery,thehusbandcanapproachthecourtforcancellationoftheorderofmaintenanceunderSection125(5).Ifitcanbesatisfactorilyprovedthatthewomanislivinginadultery,themagistratehasthepowertocanceltheorderofmaintenance.Butinsuchcases,thewomanwillbeentitledtomaintenancetillthedateshecommencedlivinginadultery(RamKishorev.BimlaDevi).49
Lumpsumamountsawardedtothewifeasadivorcesettlementcannotberescindedifadivorcedwomansubsequentlyremarries.InNanigopalChakravartyv.RenubalaChakravarty,50theOrissaHighCourt,whiledismissingthehusband’sapplicationfor
![Page 14: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 14 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
rescindingthelumpsumamountawardedtothewifeasdivorcesettlementuponherremarriage,heldthatsuchanorderwouldamounttoanannulmentofapastliabilityandnotafutureobligation.
PostDivorceAdulteryNotWithintheAmbitofSection125(4)Cr.PCIfafterdivorcethewomanremarries,thehusbandisentitledtomovethecourtforacancellationoftheorderofmaintenance.ButthisstipulationorthestipulationunderSection125(4),discussedabove,cannotbeinvokedtodenymaintenancetoadivorcedwomanonthegroundofheradulterousconduct.ThecourtshaveheldthatthestipulationunderSection125(4)that‘nowomanshallbeentitledtoreceiveanallowanceifsheislivinginadultery’referstoherconductwithinaprevailingmarriageandnottoherconductaftersheobtainsadecreeofdivorce,orevenwhensheisdivorcedonanallegationofadultery.
(p.129) ThisclarityonthestipulationwasprovidedbyaninterestingrulingoftheSupremeCourtinRohtashSinghv.Ramendri.51Throughthisruling,thecourthasattemptedtocontainthemischiefcausedinthissectionbyholdingthatitappliesonlytocaseswherethemarriagebetweenpartiesissubsistingandnotwhereithascometoanend.Thecourtexplainedthattherelevantprovisionpresupposestheexistenceofamatrimonialrelationsinceadulterydenotesthesexualintercourseoftwopersons,eitherofwhomismarriedtoathirdperson.
InValsarajanv.Saraswathy,52thewifewasrefusedmaintenanceonthegroundthatshewaslivinginadultery.Later,thehusbandobtainedadivorceonthisground.Afterdivorce,thewifefiledformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.Thehighcourtheldthatherclaimasadivorcedwifecannotbedefeatedonthegroundthatshewaslivinginadultery,orhadlivedinadultery,orhadsufferedanorderofdivorceonthegroundthatshewaslivinginadultery(Gopiv.KrishnaandDalipSinghv.Rajbala).53
InSanjeevKumarv.Dhanya,54thehusbandchallengedtheorderofthefamilycourtwhichawardedthewifeRs1,500permonthasmaintenanceonthegroundthatthewomanwhohassufferedanorderofdivorceonaccountofcontumaciousmatrimonialconductisnotentitledtomaintenance.Thecourtheld:MerelybecausethewomancontinuestobethewifeforthepurposeofclaimingmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC,nohusbandcandemandcohabitation,loyaltyorchastityfromhisdivorcedwifeasaconditionforawardinghermaintenance.
Thefactthatanypersonwasbornduringthecontinuanceofavalidmarriagebetweenhismotherandanyman,orwithin280daysafteritsdissolution,andthemotherremainingunmarried,shallbeconclusiveproofthatheisthelegitimatesonofthatman,unlessitcanbeshownthatthepartiestomarriagehadnoaccesstoeach
Box2.1TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872,Sec.112:BirthDuringMarriage,ConclusiveProofofLegitimacy
![Page 15: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 15 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
otheratanytimewhenhecouldhavebeenbegotten.
PresumptionofPaternityandDNATesting
PresumptionUnderSection112oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872Theallegationofadulteryandimmoralitysometimesextendstodenyingthepaternityofthechild.Butifcohabitationisproved,orifthewifeisabletoprovethattherewasalikelihoodofsexualcontactduringthetimeofconception,thecourtsgenerallyupholdthevalidityofthemarriageandpaternityofthechild.Thelawleansinfavouroftheinnocentchildandpreventsitfrombeingbastardizedifthereissomeindicationofthechild’sparentslivingtogetheraroundthetimeofconception,oreveniftherewasapossibilityofsexualaccessbetweenthetwo.ThewellestablishedlegalmaximwhichisinvokedindisputesoverpaternityisPaterestquemnuptiaedemonstrant:Heisthefatherwhomthemarriageindicates.TherightsofthechildtopaternityandlegitimacyareprotectedthroughapresumptioncontainedinSection112oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872(IEA).
InDukhtarJahanv.MohammedFarooq,55theSupremeCourtstipulatedasfollows:
(p.130) …Section112ofIEAlaysdownthatifapersonwasbornduringthecontinuanceofavalidmarriagebetweenhismotherandanymanorwithintwohundredandeightydaysafteritsdissolutionandthemotherremainsunmarried,itshallbetakenasconclusiveproofthatheisthelegitimatesonoftheman,unlessitcanbeshownthatthepartiestothemarriagehadnoaccesstoeachotheratanytimewhenhecouldhavebeenbegotten.Thisruleoflawbasedonthedictatesofjusticehasalwaysmadethecourtsinclinetowardsupholdingthelegitimacyofachildunlessthefactsaresocompulsiveandclinchingastonecessarilywarrantafindingthatthechildcouldnotatallhavebeenbegottentothefatherandassuchalegitimizationofthechildwouldresultinrankinjusticetothefather.Courtshavealwaysdesistedfromlightlyrenderingaverdictonthebasisofslenderevidence,whichwillhavetheeffectofbrandingachildabastardanditsmotheranunchastewoman.
Thechildwasbornaftersevenmonthsofmarriage.Tenmonthslater,thehusbanddivorcedthewife.Whenthewifefiledformaintenancethehusbanddeniedpaternity.Thecourtheldthatthewifecouldnothavehidherpregnancyfromherhusband.Butthehusbandcontinuedtocohabitwithheruntilthechildwasbornandfortenmonthsthereafter.Sincethepartieswerecloserelatives,thehusbandhadaccesstothewifeevenpriortomarriage.
InBanarasiDassv.TeekuDutta,56theSupremeCourtelaboratedthisconceptfurther:
Thelawleansinfavourofapresumptionofmarriageandlegitimacyofchildrenandagainstapresumptionofviceandimmorality.Thelawpresumesboththatamarriageceremonyisvalidandthateverypersonislegitimate.Itisinthiscontextthatmarriageandfiliations(parentage)arepresumed.Itisarebuttalpresumption
![Page 16: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 16 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
ofthelawthatachildbornduringlawfulwedlockislegitimate,andthataccessoccurredbetweentheparents.Thispresumptioncanonlybedisplacedbyastrongpreponderanceofevidenceandnotbyamerebalanceofprobabilities.Inmattersofthiskind,thecourtmusthaveregardforSection112oftheEvidenceAct.Thissectionisbasedonthewellknownmaximpaterestquemnuptiaedemonstrant(heisthefatherwhomthemarriageindicates).Thepresumptionoflegitimacyisthatachildbornofamarriedwomanisdeemedtobelegitimate.Theburdenofprovingthatitisnotathrustonthepersonwhoisinterestedinmakingacaseofillegitimacy.
ContextinWhichtheDemandforDNATestisRaisedRecentinnovationsinmedicaltechnologyhavecontributedtowardsamoreaccuratedeterminationofpaternity.BloodgrouptestinghasbeenreplacedwithanadvancedprocessofgeneticidentificationthroughtheuseofaDNA(DeoxyribonucleicAcid)test.Thissophisticatedmethodofdeterminingtheidentityofapersonwasfirstdevelopedbyscientistsin1985inEngland,andhasbeenacceptedbythelegalsystem(AnilKumarv.TurakaKondalaRao).57Demandsforconductingthesetestshavebeenmade,bothinmatrimonialandmaintenanceproceedings,forachievingdifferentobjectives.
Ininstanceswherethebiologicalfatherhasdeniedpaternity,womenhavedemandedDNAtestsoftheirhusbands/partnerstoconclusivelyprovepaternityandclaimtheirrighttomaintenance.Whilethecourtshaveheldthatnoonecanbecompelledtoundergothetest,adverseinferencecanbedrawnifthemanrefusestoundergothetestsandhiscontentionofdenyingpaternitygetsweakenedbythisdenialduringthelitigationprocess.TherearecaseswhereanillegitimatechildhasalsodemandedaDNAtestwhileclaimingmaintenancefromhisputativefather.
Atothertimes,demandsforDNAtestsaremadefrivolouslybyhusbandstodelaythejudicialprocessofawardingmaintenancetothewifeandchild,merelyasa‘roving’enquiryora‘fishing’enquiry.Insuchcases,courtshavedeclinedtograntrelieftothehusband,based(p.131) onthepresumptionoflegitimacyunderSection112oftheIEA.Incaseswhereaprimafaciepleaofnon-access(thepossibilityofsexualintimacyandconsequentconception)hasnotbeenmade,thepresumptionunderSection112oftheIEAprevailstosavethewomanfromthehumiliationofundergoingaDNAtesttodeterminepaternity.Theproceedingsformaintenancearenotcriminalandthestringentruleofevidenceapplicableincriminalproceedingsofproof‘beyondreasonabledoubt’cannotbeapplied.Butatthesametime,theruleofevidenceappliedincivilproceedings,‘preponderanceofpossibility’istoolax.Hence,courtshaveattemptedtostrikeabalanceandarriveatamiddlegroundwheretheburdenofproving‘non-access’isthrustuponthepersondisputingpaternity.
InKantiDeviv.PoshiRam,58theSupremeCourtexplainedtheconceptasfollows:
Thestandardofproofofprosecutiontoproveguiltbeyondanyreasonabledoubtbelongstocriminaljurisprudencewhereasthetestofpreponderanceofprobabilitiesbelongstocivilcases.Thetestofpreponderanceofprobabilityistoolightandmayexposemanychildrentotheperilofbeingillegitimatised.Hence,by
![Page 17: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 17 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
wayofcautionandasamatterofpublicpolicy,thelawcannotaffordtoallowsuchaconsequencetobefallaninnocentchildonthestrengthofameretiltingofprobability.Itscorollaryisthattheburdenonthehusbandshouldbehigherthanthestandardofpreponderanceofprobabilities.Thestandardproofinsuchcasesmustatleastbeofadegreeinbetweenthetwosoastoensurethattherewasnopossibilityofthechildbeingconceivedthroughtheplaintiff-husband.
RegardingtherelevanceofpresumptionunderSection112oftheIEAinthecontextoftheDNAtest,thecourtexplained:
Section112oftheIEAactwasenactedwhenmodernscientificadvancementswithDeoxyribonucleicAcid(DNA)aswellasRibonucleicAcid(RNA)testswerenotincontemplationbythelegislature.TheresultofagenuineDNAtestissaidtobescientificallyaccurate.ButeventhatisnotsufficienttoescapefromtheconclusivenessofSection112oftheAct.Forexample,ifahusbandandwifearelivingtogetherduringthetimeofconceptionbuttheDNAtestrevealsthatthechildwasnotborntothehusband,theconclusivenessinlawwouldremainunrebuttable.Thismayseemunfairfromthepointofviewofthehusbandwhowouldbecompelledtobearthefatherhoodofthechildofwhichhemaybeinnocent.Buteveninsuchacase,thelawleansinfavouroftheinnocentchildifhismotherandherspousewerelivingtogetheratthetimeofconception.
AsexplainedbytheSupremeCourtintheabovepassage,thecourtswillexerciseabundantcautionbeforeachildissubjectedtoDNAtests,whichmaycausestigmaandhumiliationandjeopardisehis/herrightsasachild.Hence,underthelawofmaintenancewhichisabeneficiallegislationenactedtopreventdestitutionandvagrancy,thecourtswillrarelyconcedetothisdemand.CourtshaveheldthatsinceproceedingsformaintenanceunderSection125oftheCr.PCaresummaryanddonotfinallydeterminethemaritalstatusofthepartiesconcerned,thecourtshavegrantedmaintenancetothewifeandchildanddirectedhusbandstoinitiatecivilproceedingsbywayofdeclaratorysuitstodeterminelegitimacyandpaternity.Onlyinveryrarecaseswhennon-accessisproved,willthecourtsentertainthedemandforaDNAtestduringmaintenanceproceedings.
ThethirdcategoryofcaseswherethedemandforDNAtestsisraisedisinmatrimoniallitigation,specificallyinproceedingsfortheannulmentofmarriageonthegroundofpre-marriagepregnancyorinproceedingsfordivorceonthegroundofadultery.Again,courtswillnotconcedetoaflippantdemand.Butifitisnecessarytoconclusivelyproveadulteryorpre-maritalpregnancy,thecourtsmayconcede(p.132) tothehusband’sdemandandsubjectthewomanandchildtoaDNAtest.Thereareinstanceswheretherefusalofthewomantoundergotestshasledtoanadverseinferencebeingdrawnagainsther.
Thefollowingcasesillustratethevariousstrandsofthiscomplexlegaldiscourse.
DenialofPaternityandLegitimacy
![Page 18: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 18 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
DNAtestshaveproventobeextremelyusefulindeterminingtherightsofillegitimatechildren.Whilefathershavetriedtowriggleoutoftheobligationofmaintainingchildrenbyclaimingthattherewasnovalidmarriage,thelawhaspinnedtheresponsibilityofmaintenanceonthefatherevenwhenthereiscohabitationorapresumptionofmarriagebetweenthemotherofthechildandtheputativefather.AsperthestipulationunderSection125ofCr.PC,theobligationtomaintainthechildextendstobothlegitimateandillegitimatechildren.Courtshaveadoptedtheprinciplethatwhilegrantingmaintenancetoanillegitimatechild,theprimaryconcernispaternityandnotthelegitimacyofthechild.
DNAtestinghasbeenahighlydisputedmatter.TheconstitutionalityofDNAtestinginsuccession,maintenance,andmatrimonialcases,hasbeenupheldbytheMadrasHighCourtinBommiv.Munirathinam,59Inthiscase,thehusbandchallengedtheorderofthetrialcourtdirectinghimtoundergoaDNAtesttodeterminepaternity,buttheMadrasHighCourtdeclaredthatsuchadirectionisnotinviolationofArticle21oftheConstitution.InSyedMohdGhousev.NoounnnisaBegum,60thehusbanddeniedbothmarriageandpaternitybutchallengedtheorderofthefamilycourttoundergoaDNAtest.ThehighcourtheldthatwhileaspertherulinginGoutamKundu(discussedlater)thecourtcannotcompelapersontogiveasampleofblood;thecourtcandrawinferencesasanecessarycorollaryinsequelthereof.TheimportanceoftheDNAtestinclarifyingacasehasbeenexpressedinJosephv.StateofKerala,61wheretheKeralaHighCourtupheldthedirectionsissuedbytheKeralaStateWomen’sCommissiontotwomenintwodifferentcasestoundergoDNAtests.Uponthemendisputingmarriageandpaternity,thewomenhadfiledcomplaintsbeforetheStateWomen’sCommission.Thelatterissueddirectionswhichwerechallengedbybothmenbeforethehighcourt.ThecourtupheldthedirectionoftheWomen’sCommissionandheldthatthetestmayabsolvethewomenoftheslursufferedbythemandredeemthemofthetraumatheywereundergoingforseveralyears.Ontheotherhand,ifthestandadoptedbythetwomenwascorrect,theytoowouldbeabsolvedofthefalseallegationsmadeagainstthem.
CourtsexercisethepowertodirectthepersondisputingpaternitytoundergoaDNAtestinordertoprotecttherightsandentitlementsofthechildand,thus,leantowardsprotectinganinnocentchild.DNAtestinghas,therefore,beenusedinanumberofcases.
Forexample,inAnilKumarv.TurakaKondalaRao,62anillegitimatesonclaimingmaintenancefromhisbiologicalfatherpleadedthathisfather,amarriedman,workingasStationSuperintendentintherailways,hadasexualrelationshipwithhismotherandhewasbornoutofthisunion.Thetrialcourtrejectedhisapplicationonthegroundthatitcouldnotbeestablishedthattherespondentwashisputativefather.Inanappeal,hisclaimwasupheld(p.133) basedonthereportofDNAtestsandhewasawardedRs300asmaintenance.Similarly,inNaniGopalKarv.StateofWestofBengal,63awomancohabitedandconceivedunderapromiseofmarriage.Whentherespondentrefusedtomarryher,thewomanfiledacriminalcomplaintofrapeandcheatingandclaimedmaintenanceforherselfandherchild.ADNAtestprovedpaternityandthewomanandchildwereawardedmaintenance.Thecourtcommentedthatpendencyofcriminalcase(ofrape)isnotabaragainstgrantinginterimmaintenancetothechild.
![Page 19: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 19 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Ifthehusbanddeclinestoundergothetest,thecourtshavethepowertodrawadverseinference.ThisisseenintheSupremeCourtdecisionofDwarikaPrasadSatpathyv.BidyutPrayaDixit,64whereitwasheldthatifthehusbanddeclinestoundergoaDNAtesthewillbedisentitledtodisputethepaternity.TheapexcourtcommentedthattheprovisionunderSection125Cr.PCisnottobeutilizedfordefeatingtherightsconferredbythelegislatureupondestitutewomen,children,orparents,whoarevictimsofthesocialenvironment.
InKanchanBediv.GurpreetSinghBedi,65whenthewifefiledformaintenanceforherson,thehusbanddeniedmarriageandpaternity.Inordertoconclusivelyprovepaternity,thewifepleadedforDNAtesting.Thehusbandvehementlyopposedthisonthegroundthatifthetestrevealedthathewasnotthefatherthechildwouldbedefamedandexposedtotheriskofbeingdeclaredabastard.But,sincethehusbandhadalreadychallengedthepaternityofthechildinhiswrittenstatementandallegedthatthechildwasillegitimate,thecourtheldthathehadnoconcernforthewelfareofthechildandhispleadingsonthisgroundlackedcredibility.Thecourtbrandedtheconcernas‘crocodilian’anddirectedthehusbandtopresenthimselfatthehospitalforaDNAtest.
MaintenanceProceedingsandRovingEnquiriesThefollowingcasesillustratethesternresponseofthehigherjudiciarytothedemandsraisedbyhusbandsforaDNAtestasadelayingtactic,andtoavoidthepaymentofmaintenancetotheirwives/partnersandchildren.
Inaleadingcase,GoutamKunduv.StateofWestBengal,66theSupremeCourtlaiddownthefollowingguidelinesfororderingbloodteststodeterminepaternity.
1.CourtsinIndiacannotorderabloodtestasamatterofcourse;2.Wheneverapplicationsaremadeforsuchprayersinordertohavearovinginquiry,theprayerforabloodtestcannotbeentertained;3.Theremustbeastrongprimafaciecasethatthehusbandmustestablishnon-accessinordertodispelthepresumptionarisingunderSection112oftheIEA;4.Thecourtmustcarefullyexaminetheconsequenceoforderingabloodtest—whetheritwillhavetheeffectofbrandingachildabastard,andthemotheranunchastewoman;5.Noonecanbecompelledtogiveasampleofbloodforanalysis.
ItwasheldthatthereisaverystrongbutrebuttablepresumptionunderSection112infavouroflegitimacyandthesectionrequiresthatthepartydisputingpaternityshouldprovenon-accessinordertodispelthepresumption.Thecourtalsoexplainedthetermaccessasthe(p.134) existenceofopportunitiesforsexualintercourseandnotactualcohabitation.
Inconclusion,thecourtcommentedthatthepurposeoftheapplicationwasnothingmorethanaploytoavoidthepaymentofmaintenance,withoutmakinganygroundwhatsoevertohaverecoursetothetest.
![Page 20: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 20 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
TherulingsinLaxmikantv.Premwati,VYedukondaluv.V.Nageswaramma67andNandlalv.Shankari68servetoclarifythepointregardingaccessandcohabitation.InV.Yedukondalu,thefamilycourtatVijayawadagrantedmaintenanceofRs400permonthtothewifeandRs100permonthforeachofthethreechildren.Inappeal,thehusbanddeniedpaternityofthethirdchildandpleadednonaccess.Whileupholdingtheorderofthetrialcourt,thehighcourtheldthatthemerefactthatthewifehadleftthematrimonialhomecanscarcelyconstituteevidenceofnon-accesswhenbothhusbandandwifewerelivinginthesamedistrictandthechildwasbornduringthecontinuanceoftheirvalidmarriage.Thecourtalsocommentedthatchargesofadulterywerenotraisedinthedivorcepetitionfiledbythehusband.Thewifehadleftthematrimonialhomeduetocrueltyandharassmentfordowry.InNandlalthehusbandchallengedthemaintenanceawardedtothewifeandchildonthegroundthathewasinjudicialcustodyatthetimewhenthechildcouldhavebeenconceived.Thehighcourtheldthatsincethewifeusedtoregularlyvisithimwhilehewasincustodyandlookafterhim,sexualcontactcannotberuledout.Thecourtcommented:‘Nowadays,nothingisimpossible.’
InRajeshChaudharyv.NirmalaChaudhary,69theDelhiHighCourt,whileadmittingthattheresultofagenuineDNAtestissaidtobescientificallyaccurate,ruledthatitisnotenoughtoescapetheconclusivenessofSection112oftheIEA.Forexample,ifahusbandandawifearelivingtogetherduringthetimeofconceptionbuttheDNAtestrevealsthatthechildwasnotborntothehusband,theconclusivenessinlawwouldstillremainirrefutable.Inthiscontext,Section112assumesprimaryimportancewhiledefendingtheclaimofthepaternityofthechild.Thehusbandhadchallengedthepaternityofhisdaughterbutinhispleadings,headmittedthathehadclearaccess.Hence,hisapplicationforaDNAtestwasrejected.
InMd.MhasinSk.v.SayedaKhatunBibi,70thehusbanddisputedthepaternityofthechildallegingthatthewifehadsexualrelationswithothermen.Butthewifewasabletoprovethatherhusbandalonehadaccesstoherand,thus,hadfatheredthechild.TheCalcuttaHighCourtupheldthewife’scontentionsandrejectedthehusband’spleaforaDNAtestashehadnobasisfordemandingit.ThecourtcommentedthatDNAtestscannotbeorderedwithoutsomeevidencetosubstantiatetheallegationsofnon-accessorsomeproofofthewife’sadultery.
Similarly,inDiddeSundaraManiv.DiddeVenkataSubbarao,71theAndhraPradeshHighCourtquashedtheorderofthetrialcourtpermittingaDNAtest.Thiswasdoneonthegroundthatthepartydisputingthepaternityofthechildhastoprovenon-accesstothemotherduringthetimewhenthechildcouldhavebeenconceived,todispelthepresumptionunderSection112oftheIEA.ThepresumptionwouldhavetobedisplacedbyleadingstrongpreponderanceofevidenceandnotmerelybyfilingapetitionfordeterminingthepaternitythroughaDNAtest.
(p.135) InParthaMajumdarv.SharmishtaMajumdar,72thetrialcourtrejectedthehusband’spleaforDNAtesting.TheCalcuttaHighCourtupheldtheorderofthemagistrateandheldthatthehusband,throughthisapplication,wantedtointroducenew
![Page 21: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 21 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
andinconsistentfactswhichweretotallyirrelevantwhiledecidingmaintenance.Hewantedtoprojecthiswifeasaprostitute,whichcannotbepermittedinproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PC.
ItwasalsoheldthattheSupremeCourtrulinginShardav.Dharmpal,73whichdealtwiththeissueofannulmentofmarriageonthegroundofamentaldisorder,hasnorelevancetothepresentcase.Thatrulingwasgiveninproceedingstoobtainamatrimonialremedyofannulmentofmarriage.ThesameprinciplecannotbeappliedtosummaryproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PC.Thisprovisionisasocialdevice,introducedforthewelfareandbenefitofpoorandneglectedwiveswhoareunabletomaintainthemselves.Thecourtcommentedthatallegationsofadulteryandaccusationsthatthebirthofthechildduetotheadulterouslifeofthewifearenothingbutwild,vague,andbaselessand,hence,theprayerforaDNAtestwasrightlyrejectedbythemagistrate.Thecourtfurthercommentedthatifafterthedecisioninproceedings,underSection125ofCr.PConthebasisofevidenceandmaterialsonrecord,thehusbandfeelsaggrieved,heisatlibertytoapproachtheappropriatecivilcourtforchallengingthepaternityofthechildandforanecessarydeclarationinthisrespect.
InHeeraSinghv.StateofUP,74whiledismissingtheappealfiledbythehusbandforaDNAtest,theAllahabadHighCourtheld:Whenthelawrequiresstrictanddirectprooftorebutthepresumptionoflegitimacy,theDNAtestofaminorchildcannotbeallowedintheabsenceofevidenceandonvaguepleadings.Thecourt,inthecapacityofadlitemguardianoftheminorcannotdirectsuchatestintheabsenceofdirectandpositiveevidenceofnon-accessasrequiredunderSection112oftheEvidenceAct.
InAmarjitKaurv.HarbhajanSingh,75inapetitionfordivorcefiledbythehusbandonthegroundofcrueltyandadultery,thewifefiledformaintenance.Sincetheapplicationwasrejected,shefiledanappealinthehighcourtwhichawardedmaintenancetoherandtheminordaughter,butdirectedthetrialcourttoconductaDNAtestwithrespecttotheson,whosepaternitywasdisputedbythehusband.Thecourtheldthatifthereportisnegative,thewifeandtheminorsonwouldnotbeentitledtomaintenance.TheSupremeCourtsetasidetheorderandheldthatthecourtcannotimposeconditionsfortheDNAtesttobeconducted,andsuchaconditionisunreasonable.
ThefollowingtwocasesareillustrativeofthecancellationofmaintenanceawardsuponcogentevidencewhichrebuttedthepresumptionofpaternityunderSection112oftheIEA.InNoorAlamv.StateofBihar,76thetrialcourtawardedRs300permonthasmaintenancetothedaughter.Thehusbanddeniedpaternity,pleadingthatthedaughterwasborntwoyearsafterhehaddivorcedhiswife.Thisexplanationwasacceptedbythehighcourt.(p.136) InAbdulRazakHajiGulambhaiQureshiv.JohrabibiHajiKalubhaiQureshi,77thetrialcourtawardedRs200permonthasmaintenancetotheminorchilddespiteevidencethatthehusbandhadnoaccesstothewifewhenthechildcouldhavebeenconceived.Inanappeal,thehighcourtheldthatachildwhowasbornwhilethemarriagewassubsisting,butwithoutthefatherhavingaccesstowifeattherelevanttimeisnotentitledtomaintenance.However,thecourtissuedawordofcautionandcommented:Itisnecessarytoobservethateventhoughthewifeherselfhasnot
![Page 22: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 22 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
challengedthefindingsagainsther,thefindingortheinferencethatshewaslivinginadulterymaynotbetakenasapprovedorconfirmedbythiscourt.
DeterminationofPre-MarriagePregnancyandAdulteryWhileinmaintenanceproceedingscourtsareextremelyreluctanttoentertainapplicationsforaDNAtesttodefeatthewomen’sclaims,indeclaratorysuitsandmatrimonialproceedings,testsarereliedupontoprovethehusband’sallegationofadulteryorpre-marriagepregnancy.Highcourtshaveupheldthetrialcourtspowertodirectthepartiestoundergotestswhiledecidingmatrimonialdisputes.CourtshaveheldthatsuchdirectionsarenotinviolationofArticle21oftheConstitution.Butthispoweristobeexercisedsparinglyandonlywheresufficientmaterialisavailablewiththecourtthataprimafaciecasehasbeenmadeoutbytheapplicant.
Forinstance,inJyothiAmmalv.K.Anjan,78thecourtupheldthehusband’spleaofadulteryandgrantedhimadivorcebasedonthereportsofDNAtestswhichexcludedhimasthefather.Sincethehusbandhadnoaccesstothewifeduringthetimeshecouldhaveconceivedthechild,thecourtheldthatallegationsofadulteryhadbeenproved.
InB.VandanaKumariv.P.PraveenKumar,79thehusbandhadfiledforannulmentonthegroundofpre-marriagepregnancy.Thewifedeliveredthechildduringthependencyofthepetition.ThehusbandsoughtaDNAtestofthewifealongwiththechildwhichwaspermittedbythetrialcourt.Inappeal,thehighcourtuphelditandstated:Todeterminethepaternityofthechildandforaneffectiveadjudicationofthecontroversybetweentheparties,aDNAtestisnecessary.ThedirectionisnotcontrarytoconclusiveproofenjoinedunderSection112oftheIEA.
MayaRamv.KamlaDevi80isalsoacaseofpre-marriagepregnancy,whereadaughterwasbornwithinsixmonthsofmarriage.Thehusbandwasabletoprovethathehadnoaccesstothewifeatthetimewhenthechildwasbegotten.WhileupholdingthedirectionofthetrialcourttoconductaDNAtest,thecourtcommentedthatwhileithasthepowertodirectthepartiestoundergothetests,itcannotcompelanypartytosubjectthemselvestoit.Butincaseapartydoesnotundergothetest,adverseinferencecanbedrawn.
However,thecourtswillnotentertainanyapplicationsbyathirdpartytodeterminepaternity.InRenubalaMoharanav.MinaMohanty,81thecourtrejectedtheapplicationfiledbythemotherofthedeceasedforadeclarationthatthechildistheillegitimateprogenyofherdeceasedson.Thecourtheldthatdeclaratoryreliefasregardstheillegitimacyofthechildcannotbegrantedasitwouldviolatetheprinciplesofnaturaljustice.
Section50–OpiniononRelationship,WhenImportant
Box2.2TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872
![Page 23: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 23 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Whenthecourthastoformanopinionastotherelationshipofonepersonwithanother,theopinion,expressedbyconduct,astotheexistenceofsucharelationship,ofanypersonswho,asamemberofthefamilyorotherwise,hasspecialmeansofknowledgeonthesubject,isarelevantfact.
Section114–CourtMayPresumetheExistenceofCertainFactsThecourtmaypresumetheexistenceofanyfactwhichitthinksislikelytohavehappened,regardbeinghadtothecommoncourseofnaturalevents,humanconductandpublicandprivatebusiness,intheirrelationtothefactsoftheparticularcase.
Similarly,inSunilTrambakev.LeelavatiTrambake,82thewifefiledanapplicationfora(p.137) DNAtestofherhusband’schildthroughabigamousmarriageincivilproceedingsforadivorcefiledbythehusband.Thetrialcourtallowedtheapplication,butinanappealthehighcourtheldthataDNAtestcannotbedirectedasamatterofroutine.Thetestscanbedirectedonlywhentheybecomeindispensabletoresolvethedispute.Thecourtshouldrecordareasonastohowandwhysuchatestisnecessarytoresolvethecontroversy.Thisisnecessarysincethesetestswillhaveanadverseimpactonthechildandmother.Thecourtheldthatthewifecanproducedocumentaryproofsuchasabirthcertificateandschoolrecordtoprovehercase.Sincethesecondwifeandherchildwerenotpartytodivorceproceedings,itwouldviolatetheprincipleofnaturaljustice.Suchtestswouldnotbeintheinterestoftheminorchild.Further,thecourtcommentedthatevenifthetestwaspositive,itwouldnothelpthewifeproveherhusband’ssecondmarriage.
PresumptioninFavourofaValidMarriage
Acorollarytothedenialofpaternityisadenialofthemarriageitself.Thislegalployisconstantlyusedinproceedingsformaintenancefiledbythewife,bothunderSection125oftheCr.PCaswellasincivilsuitsandmatrimonialproceedings.Ifamarriageisnotvalid,thestatusofthewomanisreducedfromthatofawifetoamistressorconcubine.Thechildrenwillalsosufferstigmabybeingbrandedillegitimateandwillhavetobeartheeconomicconsequencesofthedenialoftheirrights.Toavoidthiseventuality,thelawleansinfavourofapresumptionofthemarriagebeingvalidratherthaninfavourofitsbeinganillegitimaterelationship,whichthecourtswouldviewasavice.
Thepleaforinvalidityofmarriageisoftenbasedontechnicalitiesthatcertainessentialceremonieswerenotperformedorsomeessentialconditionswerenotfulfilledatthetimethatthemarriagewassolemnized.Summarisedbelowaresomefrequentlyusedgroundsfordenyingwomenmaintenanceandthepositiveapproachofthecourtswhiledecidingthesecases.
ViolationofEssentialConditionsofaMarriageChallengestothevalidityofmarriagearebasedontheabsenceofanyessentialconditionsforavalidmarriagesuchasfreeconsent,minimumage,etc.Thecourtshave
![Page 24: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 24 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
heldthataviolationofthestipulationoftheminimumageofmarriagecannotbeusedtodeprivetheminorwifeofherrighttomaintenance.
Regardingtheabsenceofconsent,inBasantiMohantyv.ParikhitRout,83whileupholdingthewife’srighttomaintenance,theOrissaHighCourtheldthatevenifitcanbeprovedthatthe(p.138) marriagewasenteredintowithouttheconsentofthehusband,themereabsenceofconsentwillnotrenderamarriagethathasbeenperformedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheHinduMarriageAct,invalidforthepurposeofclaimingmaintenance.
Similarly,violatingtheagebarwillnotrenderthemarriageinvalidandthehusbandcannotescapetheliabilityofpayingmaintenancetothewifeonthisground.84
Non-PerformanceofEssentialCeremoniesofMarriageAnotherchallengetothevalidityofmarriageisthenon-performanceofcertainessentialceremoniesasprescribedbytheHinduMarriageAct.However,variouscourtshaveheldthatifthereisotherevidencetoprovethemarriage,evidenceoftheperformanceofsaptapadi(inthecontextofHindumarriages)isnotnecessary,especiallysinceceremoniesvaryindifferentcastesandcommunities.
InDwarikaPrasadSatpathyv.BidyutPrayaDixit,85theSupremeCourtheldthatonceitisadmittedthatsomemarriageprocedurewasfollowedandifthecourtisprimafaciesatisfiedwithregardtotheperformanceofthemarriage,itisnotnecessarytoprobefurtherintowhetherceremonieswerecompleteasperHinduritesoriftheceremonyisinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheHinduMarriageAct.Themarriagewouldbedeemedvalid.
Numeroushighcourtshavealsoheldsimilarly.Forinstance,inSubhashPopatlalShahv.LataSubhashShah,86themarriagewasperformedbyapriestinatemplewhochantedmantras,tilakwasapplied,thebrideandgroomgarlandedeachother,andthemarriagewasconsummated.Later,thehusbandchallengedthevalidityofthemarriageonthegroundthatsaptapadiwasnotperformed.Butthecourtheldthatsaptapadiwasnotproventobeanessentialceremonyasperthecustomsprevailingamongbothpartiestothemarriage.Thecourtfurthercommentedthatevenifitcanbeproven,itcannotbeheldthatthemarriageisinvalidonthisbasis.Whensomeceremoniesofmarriagehavebeenperformed,thereisalwaysapresumptionofthevalidityofthemarriageunderSection114oftheIEA.Untilthispresumptionisrebuttedbycogentandsatisfactoryevidence,themarriagewillbedeemedvalid.Basedonthispresumption,theBombayHighCourtupheldtheclaimofthewomanandawardedmaintenanceofRs400permonthtothewifeandRs500permonthtoherson.ThecourtalsocommentedthattheSupremeCourtrulingrequiringstrictproofofavalidmarriageinthecontextofprosecutionforbigamyunderSection494ofIPCisnotrelevantinmatrimonialproceedings.87
TheviewthatsaptapadiisnotrequiredforavalidHindumarriagewasalsoupheldbytheRajasthanHighCourtinRoopSinghv.StateofRajasthan,88wherethemarriagewas
![Page 25: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 25 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
performedasperthecustomofnata,89whichispermissibleamongstmanylowercastecommunitiesof(p.139) Rajasthan.Whileacknowledgingthatsaptapadimaynotbeanessentialceremonyamongstsomecommunities,thecourtruledthatthenecessaryceremonieshadbeenperformed,andthatthestandardofproofneededtoproveamarriageisnotashighasthatrequiredinconnectionwithproceedingsundertheIPCfortheoffenceofbigamy.
ThePatnaHighCourtcommentedinVeenaDeviv.AshokKumarMandal,90thatitisirrelevantfortheplaceofmarriagetobementionedandsaptapaditohavetakenplaceintheapplicationinproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PC.Thecourtalsocommentedthatthefailuretonamethepriestandbarberwhowerepresentattheweddingcouldhardlyserveasagroundtodisbelievethefactumofmarriagebecauseeverybrideandbridegroomarenotexpectedtorecollectthenamesofattendeesaftertwentyyearsofmarriage.
InLaxmikantv.PremwatiDevi,91thewifehadfiledforrestitutionofconjugalrightsagainstherhusbandinthetrialcourt.Although,thehusbandpleadedthatnomarriageexistedbetweenhimandthewoman,thewifepleadedthatsomemarriageceremonieshadbeenperformed.Basedonthisshewasawardedadecreeinherfavour.When,thehusbandappealedandproducedavoterslistasevidence(wherethewomanwasnotlistedashiswife),thecourtheldthatoncemarriagebetweenthepartiesisproved,presumptionwouldbedrawnthatalltherequiredceremoniesofmarriagewereperformed.Thecourtcommentedthatthepolicyofthelawwastoleaninfavourofthevalidityofmarriageratherthanagainstit.
InMuthumanicamv.Sekaran,92despitethehusband’scontentionthattherewasnovalidmarriage,theMagistrate’scourtawardedmaintenanceofRs175tothewifeandRs125tothechild.Thesessionscourtreversedtheorderonthegroundthatthemarriagehadnotbeenprovedassaptapadiwasnotperformed.Inanappeal,theMadrasHighCourtupheldtherightofthechildtomaintenance,butdidnotgrantmaintenancetothewife.TheSupremeCourtreversedtheordersofthetwoAppellatecourtsandupheldtheorderoftheMagistrate’scourtandcommented:‘InTamilNadu,marriagebyexchangeofgarlandsispermissible.Thesmalldiscrepancyregardingthetimeofmarriageisnotagroundfordiscardingevidenceanddenyingmaintenancetothewife.’
InManmohanVaidv.MeenaKumari,93theDelhiHighCourtcommented:Asregardstheallegednon-performanceofsaptapadi,firstly,itshallbepresumedinthecircumstancesintheformoflaganferasand,secondly,non-performanceinitselfisnotasufficientconditiontodeclareamarriageinvalid/voidorvoidable.ThecourtdeclaredamarriagesolemnizedinaGurudwaraSahebaccordingtorulesofthecommitteeasvalid.Thiswasalovemarriagewherethecouplewerehavingarelationshipforfouryearsandthemarriagewasperformedagainstthewishesofparentsonbothsidesbutthematernalunclesonbothsidesattendedthewedding.Laterthehusbanddeniedthemarriageandallegedthathewasdrugged.Butthecourtcommentedthatthetrialcourtandthehighcourthadobservedthedemeanorofthehusbandandwereconvincedofthefalsityof
![Page 26: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 26 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
hiscontentions.Thehighcourtcommentedthathewasapersonwhocouldgotoanyextent(todeposefalsity).
TheCalcuttaHighCourt,inJitendraNathDasv.MinatiDas,94uponthehusband’sdenial(p.140) ofthemarriage,permittedaphotographofthewifewiththehusbandalongwithitsnegative,asevidence.Inanelaborateandwellreasonedorder,theMagistrateupheldthewife’sclaimandawardedRs400permonthasmaintenance.Whiledismissingtheappealfiledbythehusband,theCalcuttaHighCourtheldthatSection125ofCr.PCisapieceofwelfarelegislationtoprotectthewifefromdestitutionandvagrancy,andproceedingsaresummarytofacilitateaspeedydisposal.RigoursofstrictproofofalltheformalitiesofaHinduMarriagecanbedispensedwith.Thehusbandcouldnotadduceevidencethatwassufficienttoquestiontheveracityofthetestimonyofwitnessesforthewife,whowerefoundtobesound,authentic,anddependable.
InNamitaPatnaikv.DillipPatnaik,95thehusbandallegedthatadocumenttitled‘BibahaBandhanAgreement’registeredbeforetheDistrictSub-RegistrarofCuttackwasfraudulent.Hecontendedthatnomarriagehadtakenplacebetweenthepetitionerandhimself.Intheregistereddocument,thehusbandhadcategoricallystatedthathehaddulymarriedthewomanandtheDistrictSub-Registrarstatedincourtthatthedocumenthadbeenpresentedtohimbythehusband.Itwasheldthatarightaccruedbymeansofaregistereddocumentcannotbetakenawaybyadeedofcancellationand,hence,anysuchdeedhasnolegalbasis.
InJagdishv.Shobha,96thewifepleadedthatshewaspregnantatthetimeofmarriage,whichwasperformedasperBuddhistrites.Soonafter,shegavebirthbutthechilddied.Thehusbanddeniedthemarriagebutadmittedtothepre-marriagepregnancy.TheMagistratecourtdismissedherapplicationbutthesessionscourtawardedherRs400asmaintenance.Thehighcourtupheldtheorderofthesessionscourtandheld:‘Evidencetenderedbythewifeshowsthatthehusbandtiedthemarriagenecklaceandappliedvermiliononthewife’sforeheadinthepresenceofseveralothers.ThisisinaccordancewiththecustomsapplicabletoBuddhists.’
Itisevidentthatinapluralisticsociety,therigidapplicationofstipulationsregardingtheessentialceremoniesofmarriageundertheHinduMarriageAct,onlyservetodenythecrucialrightsofbasicsurvivaltowomenandchildren.Thebenefitsofsucharigidapplicationoflegalprovisionsonlyhelpshusbandsvalidatetheirmanipulationstotakeadvantageoftheirownwrongdoing.Hence,ascanbeobservedfromtheaboverulings,astrongpresumptionofthelawoperatesinfavourofmarriageandlegitimacy,whichcannotberebuttedbyamerebalanceofprobability.Theevidenceforrebuttingthevalidityofamarriageshouldbecogent,satisfactory,andconclusive.
Inter-ReligiousMarriagesChristianlawpermitsaChristianmarriagetobesolemnizedbetweenacouple,evenifoneofthemisafollowerofChristianity.Hence,inter-religionmarriagesarevalidunderChristianlaw.Muslimlawpermitsinter-religiousmarriagesundercertainspecificcircumstances.ReligionisnotabarundertheSpecialMarriageAct.ButHindulawapplies
![Page 27: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 27 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
onlytoHindusand,hence,aninter-religiousmarriageperformedasperHinduritesisnotvalid.ThesameconditionappliestoaParsimarriagewherein,ifaParsimarriesanon-Parsi,suchamarriageisinvalidundertheParsiMarriageandDivorceAct,1936(DiwanandDiwan1997).97
(p.141) But,sinceHindusocietyispluralistic,Hindulawvalidatesdiverseceremoniesandnonoticeperiodorwrittendocumentofmarriageisrequired,itiscommonpracticeforaninter-religiouscoupletooptforaHinduMarriage.Later,whenconflictsarise,thehusbandconvenientlyadvancesthepleathatsincethemarriageisinter-religious,itisnotlegallyvalid.
Sreedharanv.PushpaBai98isacaseofamarriagebetweenaHinduandChristianbelongingtotheNadarcommunity.Thevalidityofthemarriagewasbeingcontestedbythehusband.JanakiAmmaJ.oftheKeralaHighCourt,reiteratedthatthestandardofproofofmarriageforawardingmaintenanceisnotasstrictasitisforbigamyundertheIPC.Thecourtheldthatawomancannotbedeniedthestatusofawifeafterundergoingaceremonyofmarriage,merelybecausethehusbandandwifefollowdifferentreligions.Itisaninsufficientconditiontosurmisethattherewasnomarriage.
InK.SelvarajSurendranv.P.Jayakumary,99afterthedeliveryofachild,thehusbandrefusedtotakethewifebackanddeclinedtopaymaintenancetoherandthechild.Whenthewifefiledformaintenance,thehusbanddeniedtheexistenceofthemarriageandthepaternityofthechild.HeclaimedthatsinceheisaChristianandabachelor,andthewifeaHindu,therecannotbeamarriagebetweenthem.ThewifepleadedthattheywerebothHindusandmarriedundertheHMA.Thefamilycourtconcludedthatthewomanislegallymarriedandthatthechildwasbornwithinthemarriage.Itfurtherheldthatthedenialofmarriageandpaternitywastantamounttocruelty.Inanappealfiledbythehusbandagainsttheorderofthefamilycourt,theKeralaHighCourtuphelditandstatedthatthewifeisentitledtoaseparateresidenceandmaintenance.
InPatriciav.Purushothaman,100thehusbandpleadedthatheisHinduandsincethewifeisChristian,therecouldbenovalidmarriagebetweenthem.Butthecourtrejectedthispleaandheldthatsincethepartieswereacceptedbytheirrespectivefamiliesashusbandandwife,itisdifficulttoinferthattheirrelationshipwasconstruedbyfamilymembersasmereconcubinage.Further,itcanbejustifiablypresumedthattherewasalegalmarriagebetweenthemduetotheirlongcohabitationforthepurposeofawardingmaintenanceunderSection125Cr.PC.
InMadhaviRameshDudaniv.RameshK.Dudani,101themarriagewasbetweenaChristianwifeandaHinduhusband.Whenthewifeleftthematrimonialhomeduetoestrangementandfiledformaintenanceforherselfandhertwodaughters,thehusbanddeniedthevalidityofthemarriageonthegroundthatcertainessentialceremonieslikesudhikaranwerenotperformed.Thetrialcourtupheldthisplea.Inanappealfiledbythewife,whilesettingasidetheverdictofthetrialcourt,theBombayHighCourtheldthatpurificationceremonyisnotnecessaryasperSection4oftheHinduMarriageAct 102andhencetheabsencethereofcannotleadtotheconclusionthatsuchapersondidnot
![Page 28: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 28 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
converttoHinduismpriortothemarriageceremony.Further,itheldthatSection114oftheIEAexpectsthecourttopresumethe(p.142) existenceofcertainfactswhichitbelievesarelikelytohavehappened,regardbeingshowntothecommoncourseofnaturalevents.
Courtsusuallydeclinetoupholdfrivolouspleassuchastheinvalidityofinter-religiousmarriages.Theseclaimsprovideanescaperoutetohusbandsfromthelegalobligationofmaintainingthewifewithwhomtheycohabited,inwhatwasperceivedbythepartiesaswellastheirfamilies,asavalidmarriage.Ifthecourtsweretoacceptsuchfrivolouspleasadvancedbyhusbands,thelegislativeintentofprovidingmaintenancetowomeninavulnerablesituationwouldbedefeated.Hence,thecourtsareboundtoappreciatetheevidenceinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthestatuteinordertoachievethegoalofsocialjustice.
Ifthegirlherselfallegesfraudandmisrepresentationregardingreligionandsocialstatus,thecourtsarelikelytoannulaninter-religiousmarriageperformedasperHinduritesasheldbytheSupremeCourtinGullipilliSowriaRajv.BandaruPavani.103
RightsofWomeninBigamousMarriages
Oneofthemostcommonlyusedlegalstrategiestodenyawomanmaintenanceistoclaimthatthemarriageisbigamous.Priorto1955,Hindumarriageswerepolygamous.Butthecodifiedstatuteof1955,theHinduMarriageAct,renderedHindumarriagesmonogamous.104But,whileitwasdeemedmonogamousinletter,Hindumarriagescontinuetobepolygamousinreality.Withinthelegaldomain,thesemarriagesarevoid.Buthistorically,mostcommunitiesacceptedthecustomarypracticeofbigamousmarriagesandtreatedtheseunionsasvalidmarriages.Ironically,thissituationisprevalentnotonlyinruralareas,buturbancentresaswell.
Theadvantageofthemandateoflegalmonogamylieswiththehusbandashecanescapefromtheeconomicliabilityofmaintaininghiswifeonthepleathatthemarriagesufferedfromalegaldefectorlackedlegalsanctity.SinceancientHindulawandcustomarypracticesvalidatedtheinstitutionofconcubinage,eveninpresenttimes,thepleathatthewomanconcernedisa‘concubine’or‘mistress’andnotthe‘wife’canbeadvancedwitheaseinlegalarguments.Thefactthathusbandshavetakenundueadvantageandgrosslymisappropriatedthismandateisexemplifiedbythevolumeofcaselawonthesubject.Anoftinvokedlegalployistotermthewomanthedomesticmaid,amistressora‘keep’,andnotthewifewithrights,statusandentitlements.
MaintenanceRightsofSecondWivesOnthepositivesideistherulingofM.H.KaniaJ.oftheBombayHighCourt,inGovindraov.Anandibai,105deliveredin1976.InthiscaseitwasheldthatsincetheHMAisasociallegislation,itcouldnothavewhereaHinduwomanwasdupedintocontractingabigamousmarriagewithaHindumale,sheshouldbedeprivedofherrighttoclaimmaintenance.
Severallaterdecisionsfollowedthislegaldictum.Inaleadingcase,Vimalav.
![Page 29: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 29 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Veeraswamy,106theSupremeCourtheld:Section125ofCr.PCismeanttoachieveasocialpurpose.Theobjectiveistopreventvagrancyanddestitution.Whenanattemptis(p.143) madebythehusbandtonegatetheclaimoftheneglectedwifebydepictingherasakeptmistress,onthepleathathewasalreadymarried,thecourtinsistsonstrictproofoftheearliermarriage.Aprovisioninthelaw,whichdisentitlesthesecondwifefromreceivingmaintenancefromherhusbandunderSection125ofCr.PCforthesolereasonthatthemarriageceremony,thoughperformedinthecustomaryform,lackslegalsanctity,canbeappliedonlywhenthehusbandprovesthesubsistenceofalegalandvalidmarriage.ThisissoparticularlywhenSection125ofCr.PCisameasureofsocialjusticeintendedtoprotectwomenandchildren.Intheabsenceofclearproofthattherespondentislivingwithanotherwomanashusbandandwife,thecourtcannotbepersuadedtoholdthatthemarriagedulysolemnized,betweentheappellantandrespondent,suffersfromanylegalinfirmity.
Thisviewwasfurtheredinalaterruling,Mallikav.P.Kulandai,107wherethewomangotmarriedtoamanwhoclaimedtobeawidowerandtherewasadaughterbornoutofthisunion.Whenshelaterfiledformaintenance,thehusbandchallengedthevalidityofthemarriageonthegroundthathehadanearliermarriagesubsisting.Thelowercourtupheldthehusband’spleathatthemarriagewasnotlegalanddeniedmaintenancetothewoman.Butinanappeal,theMadrasHighCourtheldthatthoughthemarriagecouldnotbestrictlyproven,therewassufficientevidencetoestablishthatthepartieslivedtogethercontinuouslyforaperiodoftimelongenoughforachildtobeborn.Thecourtupheldthewoman’sclaimofRs250maintenanceforherselfandRs50tothechildbornofthisunion.In2002,theBombayHighCourt,inR.Arorav.B.Arora,108upheldtherightofthesecondwifetoaseparateresidenceandmaintenanceunderSection18oftheHinduAdoptionandMaintenanceAct.Inthiscase,whiledivorceproceedingswerependingagainstthefirstwife,thehusbandenteredaninformalrelationshipwithanotherwoman,butlater,reconciledwithhiswife.Thewomanfiledforadeclarationthathermarriageisvalid,foraninjunctionagainstdispossession,andformaintenance.Thefamilycourtpassedanorderrestrainingthehusbandfromthrowingthewomanoutoftheflatinwhichshewasresidingalongwithherdaughter,andawardedmaintenanceofRs10,000.Inanappeal,theBombayHighCourtruledthatsincethehusbandhadreconciledwithhisfirstwife,thesubsequentpartnercouldnotbeexpectedtoresideinthesamehouseandthatshewasentitledtoaseparateresidence.
TheturningpointinthislineofargumentscamewithacontraryviewadvancedbythefullbenchverdictinBhausahebRaghujiMagarv.LeelabaiBhausahebMagar,109in2003bytheBombayHighCourt.Inthiscase,itwasheldthattheearlierdecisionoftheBombayHighCourt,upholdingtherightofmaintenancetotheillegitimatewife(orfaithfulmistress)byaliberalconstructionoftheword‘wife’ascontainedinSection25ofHMA,isnotgoodlaw.Thecourtcommentedthatthoughsuchaliberalconstruction,whichmaybenefitsecondwiveswhoareinnocentlydrawnintomarriages,itmayencouragebigamousmarriageswithfullknowledge,inspiteoftheexistenceofalegislationpreventingbigamousmarriages.
![Page 30: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 30 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
TheSupremeCourtrulingin2005,inSavitabenSomabhaiBhatiyav.StateofGujarat,110alsoendorsedthisview.Inthiscase,awoman,claimingtohavebeenmarriedaccordingtocustomaryritesandrituals,pleadedthather(p.144) husbandhadanillicitrelationshipwithawomannamedVeenaben.ThehusbanddeniedthemarriageandpleadedthatVeenabenwhomhehadmarried22yearsagowashislawfulwife.TheGujaratHighCourtupheldthevalidityofhismarriagewithVeenaben.Endorsingthisverdict,theSupremeCourtheldthatitisinconsequentialthatthemanwastreatingSavitabenashiswife.Howeverdesirableitmaybetotakenoteoftheplightoftheunfortunatewoman,itistheintentionofthelegislaturewhichisrelevantandnottheattitudeoftheparty.Thereisnoscopeforenlargingitbyintroducingawomannotlawfullymarriedintheexpression‘wife’.Followingthisruling,theBombayHighCourt,inAtmaramTukaramSuradkarv.SauTrivenibaiAtmaramSuradkar,111heldthatthepositionofawomanwhoismarriedtoapersonwhosespouseislivingatthetimeofthesecondmarriageisamistressandnotamarriedwife,andisnotentitledtomaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.SimilarlyinBuddepuKhogayyav.BuddepuKamalu,112thewomanadmittedthatthehusbandwasmarriedatthetimeofhermarriagetohim,butthathehadpromisedtodivorceherinthecourseoftime,whichhedidnotdo.Later,aftertwochildrenwereborn,hedesertedher.TheMagistrate’scourtawardedherRs400asmaintenance,butrelyingontheSupremeCourtrulinginSavitaben,thehighcourtreversedtheorderandheldthatsuchapleaunderSection125ofCr.PCwasofnoavailtoher.
ThederogatoryattitudetowardswomenwhoareinsuchrelationshipsisfurtherreflectedinMaltiv.StateofU.P.,113wherethehusbanddevelopedasexualrelationshipwiththedomesticmaidandstartedcohabitingwithher.Whenthewifereturned,heturnedthemaidoutofthehouse.Whenaclaimformaintenancewasfiledbythedomesticmaid,thejudgedeclared:‘Thetwomayagreetolivetogethertosatisfytheiranimalneeds.Butsuchaunionisnevercalledamarriageandawomanleadingsuchalifecannotbebestowedwiththesacrosancthonourofawife.Nomaritalobligationsaccruetosuchawomanagainstherhusband.’Whilecommentsaboutthehighmoralstandardsmayappearsalutary,itdoesseemthatthepriceforimmoralityistobepaidonlybythewoman,whilethemanisleftfreetoexploitbothwomen.ThisseemstobetheoutcomeofenforcingastrictcodeofmonogamyundertheHinduMarriageAct.
Inthiscontext,oneneedstoelaborateontworecentjudgmentsdeliveredbytheDelhiHighCourt,reportedin2008.ThesejudicialpronouncementshaveattemptedtocrossthestumblingblockposedbythestipulationofmonogamyunderSection5oftheHMAbyinvokinginnovativelegalmaximstoprotecttherightsofwomen.
Inthefirstcase,SureshKhullarv.VijayKumarKhullar,114whilecontractingthepresentmarriage,thehusband’sfirstmarriagewasdissolvedbyacourtoflaw.Thewifewasinnocentandobliviousofthefraudulentcircumstancesunderwhichthehusbandhadobtainedanexpartedecreeofdivorceagainsthisfirstwife.Afterafewmonthsofhermarriage,thewomanwasdrivenoutofthematrimonialhome.Thereafter,thehusband’sexpartedecreeofdivorcewassetasideonthegroundoffraudand,throughthislegal
![Page 31: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 31 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
incidentSureshKhullar’smarriagewasrenderedbigamousandinvalid.Thewomanfiledasuitfordamagesagainstthehusbandandhisfirstwifeonthegroundoffraudandcheating,whichwasdecreedbyaciviljudge.While(p.145) upholdingtherightofthewoman,thecourtwithrespecttoSection18ofHAMA,theDelhihighcourtheldasfollows:‘Whileinterpretingastatute,thecourtsmaynotonlytakeintoconsiderationthepurposeforwhichthestatutewasenacted,butalsothemischiefitseekstosuppress.’Thecourtinvokedthelegalmaximconstructionutresmagisvaleatquampereat,thatis,wherealternativeconstructionsarepossible,thecourtmustgiveeffecttothatwhichwillberesponsibleforthesmoothworkingofthesystemforwhichthestatutehasbeenenactedratherthanonewhichwillputaroadblockinitsway.Thecourtcommentedthatifthisinterpretationisnotaccepted,itwouldamounttogivingapremiumtothehusbandfordefraudingthewife.ItwasheldthatforthepurposeofclaimingmaintenanceunderSection18ofHAMA,thewomanshouldbetreatedasthelegallyweddedwife.
ThesecondrulingwaspronouncedinNarinderPalKaurChawlav.ManjeetSinghChawla.115ThewifehadapproachedthecourtformaintenanceunderSection18ofHAMAin1997andpleadedthatherhusbandhaddupedherbysuppressinghisearliermarriage.Thecouplehadlivedtogetherforfourteenyearsandhadtwodaughters.Thehusbandpleadedthatsincehisearliermarriagewasvalidandsubsisting,hismarriagewithNarinderPalKaurwasvoid.Afteraprolongedandcontentiouslitigation,shewasabletosecureanorderofinterimmaintenanceofRs1,500permonthBut,whenthecasewasfinallydecidedin2005,thetrialcourtdismissedherpetitiononthegroundthatshecouldnotbetreatedasaHinduwifeunderSection18ofHAMAasshedidnothavethestatusofalegallyweddedwife.Butinappeal,theDelhiHighCourtupheldtherightofthewifeandheldthatevenifthewomancannotbetreatedasaHinduwife,sheisentitledtoalumpsettlementbywayofdamages.
CustomaryDivorceandSubsequentRemarriageDespitetheenactmentoftheHinduMarriageAct,whichprovidedforajudicialdivorce,thepracticeofcustomarydivorceisprevalentamonglargesectionsofsociety,andmoresoamongthepoorinruralareaswhofinditdifficultandexpensivetoaccesstheformalcourtstructures.Thecustomarydivorceandremarriagewasanacceptedpracticeamongthelowerclassesandeventhecodifiedlawvalidatessuchpractices.116But,whenwomeninsuchmarriagesclaimmaintenance,thehusbandschallengethecustomarydivorcetoinvalidatethepresentmarriageanddefeatthewoman’sclaimofmaintenance.Here,too,thecourtshaveheldcontradictoryviews.Whilesomejudgmentshaveseenthroughthefalsityofsuchclaims,othershaveheldinfavourofhusbands,thus,renderingwomentrappedinsuchsituationextremelyvulnerable.
OnthepositivesideisthecaseofPushpabaiv.PratapSingh.117WhenthewifewasawardedmaintenanceofRs500permonthbythetrialcourt,thehusbandfiledanappealandpleadedthattherewasnovalidmarriagebetweenthepartiessincethewifehadnotobtainedadivorcefromherfirsthusbandand,hence,sheisnothislegallymarriedwife.Thesessionscourtsetasidetheorderofmaintenance.Inappeal,thewifepleadedthatshehadbeendivorcedaccordingtothecustomofthecasteandthedivorcetookplace
![Page 32: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 32 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
beforetheGonaceremony.118Onexaminationofevidence,theMadhyaPradeshHighcourtupheld(p.146) theorderoftheMagistrate’scourtthatthecustomarydivorceandthesubsequentmarriageisvalid,andawardedRs1,000ascoststothewife.Whilethejudgmentispositive,ithighlightsthelongandcircuitousroutetojusticewhichwomenhavetoundertakeforapaltrysumofmaintenance.In2004,inRameshchandraDagav.RameshwariDaga,119thehusbandhadmarriedRameshwari,whohadobtainedacustomarydivorce(chorchittee)throughadivorcedeed,whichwasallegedlyshowntothehusbandpriortothemarriage.Later,whensheclaimedmaintenance,thehusbanddeniedthemarriageonthegroundthatthewomanhadnotbeenformallydivorced.BoththefamilycourtatMumbaiaswellastheBombayHighCourtupheldthewife’sandherdaughter’srightofmaintenance.Inthefinalverdict,theSupremeCourtupheldthewoman’spleathatthehusband,anadvocate,wasawareofthecustomarydivorceatthetimeofhismarriage.
ThefactsofthiscasetellthetragictaleofanIndianwoman,whohavinggonethroughtwomarriageswithachildborntoher,apprehendsdestitutionasbothmarriageshavebrokendown’,thejudgescommentedwithanoteofcompassion.Further,theSupremeCourtacceptedthatHindumarriages,likeMuslimmarriages,werebigamouspriortothe1955enactment.Thereisalsoatacitacceptancethatthegroundrealityhasnotchangedmuchsincetheenactment.So,thoughsuchmarriagesareillegal,asperthestatutoryprovisionsofthecodifiedHindulaw,theSupremeCourtruledthattheyarenotimmoraland,hence,afinanciallydependentwomancannotbedeniedmaintenanceonthisground.
InK.Surammav.K.Rammayyamma,120itwasheldthatthepartiesrelyingoncustommustprovethecustom.Sincetherewasnoevidenceofthepracticeofcustomarydivorcebeingancientandcontinuous,andnoevidenceonrecordtoprovethatherdivorcewithherearlierhusbandwasfinal,thecourtdeclinedtoupholdthewoman’srightstothedeathbenefitsofherdeceasedhusband.121
Inthesecasesthechallengebeforethecourtistoexaminewhetherthemarriagecontractedbythewomansubsequenttoherdivorceandobtainedthroughcustomarypracticesisvalid,orwhetherthesubsequentmarriagecanbedeclaredbigamousand,hence,invalid.Thecourtsalsoexaminetheintentionoftheparties—whethertherewasanintentiontodivorce,orwhethertherewasanintentiontodeceiveandfraudulentlyenterintoasecondmarriagewhiletheearlieronewassubsisting.
InParikshatv.StateofUP,thehusbandchallengedtheorderofmaintenanceawardingthewifeRs500permonthasmaintenanceonthegroundthatsinceshehadnotobtaineddivorcefromherprevioushusband,hermarriagewithhimisnotvalid.Thehighcourtupheldtheorderofthetrialcourtandheldthatwhenthefactumofmarriageisadmitted,itshouldbepresumedthatthewifeisthelegallyweddedwife.Thetrialcourthadheldthattherehadbeenacustomarydivorcecalledchuttachuttiand,hence,thewoman’spreviousmarriagestoodterminated.Neithertrialcourtnortherevisioncourtspecifiedthatthehusbandhadmadeacontentionthatthepracticeofcustomarydivorcewasunacceptableonthebasisofthewellestablishedprinciplethatcustomcannotoverride
![Page 33: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 33 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
writtenlawand,further,thatdivorcecouldbeacceptableonlyifitwasbroughtaboutinaccordancewithprovisionsofHindulaw.
AftertheSupremeCourtrulinginRameshchandraDagav.RameshwariDaga(p.147)(discussedearlier),itappearedthatitwillnolongerbepossibleforaHinduhusbandtoescapefromhisliabilityofmaintaininghiswifeonthepleathatthewifeisnotformallydivorcedfromherprevioushusband,oronthepleathatthewomanishisconcubinesincehisownpreviousmarriageisstillsubsisting.ButthesubsequentrulinginSavitabenSomabhaiBhatiyav.StateofGujarat(alsodiscussedearlier)hasagainrenderedthesituationambiguous.Butsubsequenttothisruling,theProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceActwasenactedin2005,whichhasawardedlegalrecognitiontoinformalrelationshipsandcohabitteerights.Thislegalprovisionwhichisdiscussedsubsequently,aswellasjudicialpronouncementsofvarioushighcourts,havebroughtinarenewedhopetowomenwhosemarriagesufferfromlegalortechnicaldefect.
SuccessionRightsofSecondWivesChallengestotherightsofthesecondwifeextendbeyondissuesofmaintenanceandspilloverintothedomainofsuccessionrights.Casesarisebecausetheclaimsofthesecond(orsubsequent)wifeorherheirsarecontestedeitherbythefirst(orformer)wife,herchildren,orthehusband’srelatives.Here,too,onecanfinddivergentviewsontheissue.
OnthepositivesideistherulinginShantaramPatilv.DagubaiPatil.122Inthiscase,whiledecidingtherightofawidowinaninvalidmarriage,theBombayHighCourthadheldasfollows:Evenifthemarriageisvoid,thewomanhasarightagainstthehusband.TherightcanbeenforcednotonlyinaproceedingunderSection25oftheHMA,butinanyproceedingwherevalidityofmarriageandtherightsflowingfromitaredetermined.Therightcanbeenforcednotonlyduringthelifetimeofthehusbandbutalsoafterhisdeathagainsthisproperty.Inthiscase,thecourtalsoruledthatthesonfromthesecondmarriageisentitledtoashareinthefather’spropertyalongwiththefirstwifeandherthreechildren,andthesecondwifeisentitledtomaintenancefromthepropertyofherdeceasedhusband.
Followingisaninterestingcasewherethechildofthesecondwifecontestedtheclaimofsuccessionofthethirdwifeandwhereissuesofcustomarymarriageanddivorcewerealsoinvolved.InShakuntalabaiv.Kulkarni,123thehusbandhadremarriedasthefirstwifecouldnotbearchildren.AfterthedeathofthesecondwifehemarriedforthethirdtimeinthecustomaryUdikiform.Afterhisdeath,thedaughterofthesecondwifechallengedthesuccessionclaimofthethirdwife.Theissuebeforethecourtwaswhetherthedivorceincustomaryformandsubsequentmarriageincustomaryformwasvalidunderthelaw.Thecourtobservedthatinmattersofthiskind,hearsayevidence,liketraditions,maybereceivedasdirectevidencesincedirectevidenceofsuchmarriageswasnotalwaysavailable,andoneofthewaysinwhichthemarriagecanbeprovedwasfromthemanneroftheirlivingandfromthewayinwhichtheyweretreatedbytheirneighbours.
ThecaseofReshamBaiv.Shakuntalabai124involveddistributionofassetsbetweenthe
![Page 34: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 34 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
motherandthetwowivesofthedeceased.ThetrialcourthaddirectedthatthedepositofRs52,248shouldbedistributedequallybetweenmotherandtwowives.Boththewivesweretogetthefamilypensioninequalshare.Thehighcourtheldsuchdistributionofassetstobefair,reasonable,andbasedonequitableconsideration.
(p.148) In2008,theSupremeCourt,inTulsav.Durghatiya,haslaiddownthatifacoupleislivingtogetherforaverylongperiodashusbandandwife,therewouldbepresumptioninfavourofwedlock.Thispresumptionisrebuttable,butaheavyburdeniscastuponthepersonwhoseekstodeprivetherelationshipofitslegalorigintoprovethatnomarriagetookplace.TheCourtreiteratedthatthelawleansinfavouroflegitimacyandfrownsuponbastardy.Inthiscase,thecouplehadlivedtogetherforthirtyyearsandhadfivechildren.Thedaughtersweregiveninmarriagebythehusband.Afterherhusband’sdeath,thewomanhadlegitimateclaimoverthepropertyashiswife.Shehadincurreddebtatthetimeofherson’smarriageandhadsoldpartofthelandforthispurpose.TheSupremeCourtheldthatshehadtherighttoselllandandthereisnoquestionofhavinganyillegalpossession.Whilethetrialcourtupheldherclaim,theappellatecourtwithoutanyevidence,hadcometoanabruptconclusionthatthewomanhadstartedlivingwiththemanduringthelifetimeofherhusbandand,hence,sheisnotthewifebutmerelyaconcubine.Hence,shedoesnotacquiretherightsofawidowandcannotinherithisproperty.Butevidenceclearlyprovedthatherformerhusbandwasnotalivewhenshecameandstartedlivingwiththedeceased.TheSupremeCourtconcludedthatcontinuouslivingashusbandandwifehadbeenestablished.
Whiletheaboverulingsfavourwomenininvalidmarriages,thefollowingjudgmentsareindicativeofacontradictorytrend.
InRajeshbaiv.Shantabai,125thefirstwife,Shantabaicontestedtheclaimofsuccessionofthesecondwife,Rajeshbai,whowasinpossessionofthepropertyafterthedeathofherhusband.Thecourtcommented:Theinjunctiverulethatneitherpartyshouldhaveaspouselivingatthetimeofmarriageisenactedtoprohibitpolygamyandtoinstitutemeasuresofmonogamy.Theremaybecaseswherethatstatusmaynotbeavailabletoawomanbecauseoftheinjunctiveprocessoflaw.Thoughsuchawomanmighthaveundergoneaformalmarriage,herstatuswouldbethatofanillegitimatewife,andsuchawifeisnotconferredwiththestatuswhichisavailabletoalegitimatewifenordoesshehaveanyentitlement,asthelawfulwifeofherhusband,tothepropertyundertheprovisionoftheHinduSuccessionAct,1956.Hence,itwasheldthatbothbyvirtueofstatusandlaw,Shantabaialonewouldbeconsideredasawidowandassuchwouldsucceedtothepropertiesofthedeceased.However,thecourtorderedpaymentofRs20,000toRajeshbaiasfullandfinalsettlementofherclaim.
Similarly,inNimbammav.Rathanamma,126thecourtruledthattheprovisionsofSection5(i)and11ofHMArenderthepositionofawomanmarriedtoapersonwhosewifewaslivingatthetimeofthesecondmarriagetobethatofakeptmistressandnotthatofalegallymarriedwife.Statingthatabigamousmarriageisnullandvoidabinitio,thecourtheldthatsuchawomanwasnotentitledtosucceedtothepropertiesofthatperson.
![Page 35: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 35 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
AnotherinterestingcaseisFelixv.Jemi.127Thefirstwifeandherchildrenchallengedthesuccessionclaimsofthesecondwifeandherchildren.ThepartiesandthedeceasedhusbandwereChristians.Thecourtheldthatthedivorceobtainedin1971,bythemutualconsent,ofthefirstwifeandthedeceasedwasnotvalidunderthelawapplicabletoChristians.Hence,asthepetitionerwasstillthelawfullyweddedwifeofthedeceasedatthetimeofthelatter’smarriage(p.149) withthesecondwife,thecourtstatedthattherelationshipbetweenhimandthesecondwifewasmereconcubinageandthechildrenbornofthatunionwereillegitimate.Statingthatonlybecausetheylivedunderoneroof,thewomancouldnotclaimthestatusofthewifeofthedeceased,thecourtheldthatoncethemarriagebetweenthefirstwifeanddeceasedwasadmittedandthemarriagewasnotdissolvedinmannerknowntolaw,thewomaninasubsequentrelationshipwilllosethestatusofawife.ThecaseisrathertragicbecausetheChristianlawhadremainedarchaicforaverylongtimeandthenotionofjudicialdivorcebymutualconsentwasintroducedonlyin2001.Therewasnolegalavenueforthepartiesconcernedtoobtainajudicialdecreeofdivorcebyconsent.128So,thoughthedeceasedandthefirstwifehadseparatedwithconsent,theycouldnotobtainajudicialdecreetothiseffectandthesecondwifewhohadinfullfaith,wasdeniedhersuccessionrights.
SuccessionRightsofChildrenofVoidMarriagesRatherinterestingly,eachofthecasesdiscussedearlierconcernedthesuccessionrightsofchildrenofsecondwives.Insomecases,theirrightshavebeenupheldinvokingtheprovisionofSection16ofHMA.Priortothe1976amendmentonlychildrenwhoseparentshadobtainedadecreeofnullityweredeemedlegitimateandwereentitledtorights.Butafterthe1976amendmenttoSection16,thechildrenofvoidmarriageswereawardedtherightofmaintenanceandsuccession,irrespectiveofwhetherthepartieshadobtainedadecreeofnullity.Thismoveservedtowidenthescopeofthissectionandbroughtwithinitsambitalargenumberofchildrenwhoseparents’marriagesweredeemedinvalidduetothestipulationofmonogamy.Thesechildrenarenowdeemedlegitimateandareawardedrightsofmaintenanceandsuccessioninselfacquiredpropertyoftheirparents.Whileawardingsuccessionrightstoanillegitimatechild,thecourtshavealsoinvokedtheinstitutionofdasiputra(sonofaslave)whichwasprevalentundertheancientHindulaw.(p.150) Theseprinciplesaredemonstratedinthefollowingcases.
Section16:LegitimacyofChildrenofVoidandVoidableMarriages
(1)NotwithstandingthatamarriageisnullandvoidunderSection11,anychildofsuchmarriagewhowouldhavebeenlegitimateifthemarriagehadbeenvalid,shallbelegitimate,whethersuchchildisbornbeforeorafterthecommencementoftheMarriageLaws(Amendment)Act,1976,andwhetherornotadecreeofnullityisgrantedinrespectofthatmarriageunderthisAct,andwhetherornotthemarriageisheldtobevoidotherwisethanona
Box2.3TheHinduMarriageAct
![Page 36: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 36 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
petitionunderthisAct.(3)NothingcontainedinSub-Section(1)orSub-Section(2)shallbeconstruedasconferringuponanychildofamarriagewhichisnullandvoidorwhichisannulledbyadecreeofnullityunderSection12,anyrightsinortothepropertyofanyperson,otherthantheparents,inanycasewhere,butforthepassingofthisAct,suchchildwouldhavebeenincapableofpossessingoracquiringanysuchrightsbyreasonofhisnotbeingthelegitimatechildofhisparents.
S.P.S.Balasubramanyamv.Suruttayan@AndaliPadayachi129concernedthesuccessionrightsofRamaswamywhowasthesonofawomanPavayee,wholivedwithoneChinathambiashissecondwife.Thecouplehadbeenlivingtogethersince1920.ThefactthatRamaswamywasthesonofthiscoupleandwasbornwhiletheylivedtogetherashusbandandwifewasnotdisputed.ButthetrialcourthadrejectedRamaswamy’ssuitfordeclarationandpossessionofthelandwhichbelongedtohisfatheronthegroundthattherewasnovalidmarriagebetweenhisparents.Butthefirstappellatecourtupheldhisclaimonthepremisethatlongcohabitationleadstopresumptionofavalidmarriage.ButtheMadrasHighCourtsetasidethisorderandrestoredtheorderofthetrialcourt.Inappeal,theSupremeCourtrejectedthecontentionthatRamaswamy’smotherhadleftherownhusbandandwaslivinginanadulterousrelationshipwiththedeceasedChinathambi,thefatherofRamaswamy,andsinceshewasamereconcubine,herchildhadnoclaimoverthepropertyofhisfather.Thecourtheldthatthiscontentionisirrelevantfordecidingtheissueofsuccessionrightsofthechildaschildrenbornevenofavoidmarriagearedeemedtobelegitimate.TheSupremeCourtsetasidetheorderofthehighcourtandrestoredtheorderofthefirstappellatecourtandupheldtherightsofRamaswamyoverthelandwhichbelongedtohisfather.
InLalithammav.AgriculturalEngineer,KarnatakaAgroIndustriesCorporation,Dharwad,130thedeceasedwasentitledtocompensationundertheWorkmen’sSaleCompensationAct,1923.Theappellant,amistressofthedeceased,claimedmaintenanceforherminorson.Whiletheclaimwasrejectedinthelowercourt,inappeal,theKarnatakaHighCourtheldthattheillegitimatechildofaworkmancanclaimdamagesforthelossofhisfather,andheisentitledtoashareequaltotheotherlegitimateheirs.
InRameshwariDeviv.StateofBihar,131itwasheldthatchildrenbornoutofaninvalidmarriagearelegitimateandareentitledtofamilypensionandgratuitypaymentsoftheirfather.Thecourtheldthatitwasprovedthatthesecondwifeandthedeceasedlivedashusbandandwifesince1963.ThisgivesrisetoapresumptioninfavourofavalidHindumarriage.ButitisnotalegalmarriagesinceitwasincontraventionoftheprovisionofmonogamyunderSection5oftheHinduMarriageActand,hence,itisvoidandthewomancannotbedeemedasawidowofthedeceased.Butthesonsofavoidmarriagebeinglegitimateareentitledtopropertyofthedeceasedinequalsharesalongwiththefirstwifeandherson.
![Page 37: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 37 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InLakshmammav.Kamalamma,132thedaughterofthesecondwife,ofthedeceased,claimedsuccessionrightstothepropertyofherfather.Theotherclaimantschallengedherclaimonthegroundthattherewasnovalidmarriagebetweenthedeceasedandhermother.Butupholdingherclaim,theKarnatakaHighCourtruledthatifthepartieslivedtogetherashusbandandwifeforseveraldecadesandthecommunityacceptedthemashusbandandwifetherewouldbeapresumptionofavalidmarriagebetweentheparties.Theoralevidencethatthemarriagetookplaceseveralyearsagowasalsoacceptedasvalidevidence.
(p.151) InParmanandv.Jagrani,133theclaimofthechildrenofthesecondwifewasopposedbythechildrenofthefirstwifeonthegroundthatthechildrenareillegitimate,asneitheroftheirparentsweremarriednorcouldtheyhavemarriedasthesecondwife’spreviousmarriagewasstillsubsistingatthetimeshestartedlivingwiththeirfather.Thesecondwifewasmarriedearlier,butafterseparatingfromherearlierhusbandshehadbeenlivingforalongtimewiththedeceasedandsevenchildrenwerebornoutofthisunion.Thehighcourtheldthatinviewofthelongcohabitationbetweenthedeceasedandthemotheroftheclaimants,amarriagecouldbepresumedbetweenthem.Onthebasisofthispresumption,thechildrenbornwouldbedeemedlegitimateandobtainbenefitsasperSection16(1)oftheHMAandwouldbeentitledtoinheritthepropertyoftheirputativefather.TheMadhyaPradeshHighCourtcommentedthatinKhatricommunitytowhichthepartiesbelonged,thecustomofnatramarriageprevailedwhichpermittedawifetocontractasecondmarriageduringthelifetimeofherfirsthusband.Aftercontractingmarriagethroughnatra,ifthewifeliveswiththemanasawifeforanumberofyearsandifherformerhusbandtakesnoactionregardinghisrightsofthemarriagethenitispresumedthatthenatraislegal,andchildrenoutofthisunionwouldbeconsideredlegitimate.134
Thecourtobservedfurther:TheHinduMarriageActisabeneficiallegislationand,therefore,ithastobeinterpretedinsuchamannerastoadvancetheobjectofthelegislation.TheActintendstobringaboutsocialreforms.Conferringthestatusoflegitimacyoninnocentchildren,whoareotherwisetreatedasbastards,istheprimeobjectofSection16oftheHinduMarriageAct.
InMinorGopi,Rep.byMotherandnextFriendSanthiv.Rathinam,135itwasheldthattheillegitimatechildofavoidmarriageisentitledtoclaimashareonlyinthepropertyoffather.Whilethefatherisalive,thesoncannotclaimhisshareintheproperty.Therightwouldaccrueonlyafterthedeathofthefather.
InChinnammalv.Elumalai,136itwasheldthatunderSection16oftheHMA,illegitimatechildrenareentitledtoanequalshareintheindividualandself-acquiredpropertyoftheirfather,thoughnotintheancestralproperty.InSarojammav.Neelamma,137theKarnatakaHighCourtpushedtheboundariesoftheclaimsofillegitimatechildrenandheldthatthechildrenbornoutofwedlockareentitledtoashare,notonlyintheself-acquiredpropertiesoftheparents,butalsointhejointorancestralpropertiesofparents.
![Page 38: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 38 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
ASupremeCourtrulingof2003,inJiniaKeotinv.KumarManjhi,138hascontradictedthisviewandheld:‘ThoughSection16wasenactedforlegitimatechildren,whowouldotherwisesufferbybecomingillegitimate,inviewofanexpressmandateoftheLegislatureitselfunderSub-Section(3),thereisnoroomforaccordinguponsuchchildrenwhobutforSection16wouldhavebeenbrandedasillegitimateanyfurtherrightsthanenvisagedthereinbyresortingtoanypresumptiveorinferentialprocessofreasoning,havingrecoursetothemereobjectorpurposeofenactingSection16oftheAct.(p.152) AnyattempttodosowouldamountnotonlytovoilatingtheprovisionspecificallyengraftedinSub-section(3)ofSection16oftheActbutalsowouldamounttocourtre-legislatingonthesubjectundertheguiseofinterpretation,againsteventhewillexpressedintheenactmentitself.’Morerecently,theBombayHighCourt,inMarutiRauManev.ShrikantMarutiMane,139whiledeterminingsuccessionrightsofthechildrenofthesecondwifehasheldthatthesechildrenarenotentitledtoinheritancestralcoparcenerproperty.Buttheyareentitledtoanequalshareinthefather’sshareincoparcenerproperty.
WhiletheamendmenttoSection16oftheHinduMarriageAct,in1976,hasstrengthenedthesuccessionrightsofillegitimatechildren/childrenofvoidmarriages,theSupremeCourtin1961,inSinghaiAjitKumarv.Ujayarsingh,140hadheldthatevenundertheshastricandtextuallaw(orancientHindulaw),anillegitimatesonofamistressorconcubineisentitledtotherightsofsurvivorshipashebecomesacoparceneralongwiththelegitimatesonand,hence,isentitledtoenforceapartitionafterthefather’sdeath.
Somecourtshavedistinguishedbetweenavoidorvoidablemarriage,andmereconcubinagewhiledeterminingtherightsofillegitimatechildrenininvalidmarriagesandinformalcohabitation.Whilethemaintenancerightsofillegitimatechildrenareclearlylaidout,whenitcomestosuccessionrights,thesituationcontinuestobeambiguous.Relyingontechnicalnuances,borderingontheabsurd,andignoringthelegislativeintent,somecourtshaveheldthatchildrenofasecondwifeareentitledtomaintenancebeingchildrenofavoidmarriagesincesomesortofmarriageceremonymighthavetakenplace.Butifthewomanismerelycohabitingwithoutundergoinganyceremony,thecourtshavetermedherasaconcubinewhoisdevoidofrights.HerethecourtshaveadoptedaveryconstrainedviewofbeneficialprovisionofSection16ofHMAandhaveheldthatanillegitimatechildcaninheritthepropertyofthefatheronlywhenitcanbeprovedthattheparentshaveundergonesomemarriageceremony.Inordertoattractthissectionthereshouldhavebeena‘marriage’betweentheparentsandthatmarriageshouldhavebeennullandvoidunderSection11.SincebigamousmarriageisvoidunderSection11,thesamewouldbecoveredunderthisprovision,butbenefitscannotbeextendedtothechildofamistressorconcubine.
Forinstance,inSingaramUdayarv.Subramaniam,141itwasheldthatchildrenacquirenorightsthroughconcubinage.Thereshouldbevoidorvoidablemarriagebetweenparentsoftheindividualwhoclaimsthestatusofanillegitimatechildtogetasharefromtheestateofhisfather.Ifthereisnoproofofanymarriage,thechildrenbornoutofthis
![Page 39: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 39 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
unioncannotbetreatedasillegitimatechildrenentitledforshare.Section16ofHMAdoesnotdealwithrightsofchildrenthroughconcubinage.
InChodanPuthiyothShyamalavalliAmmav.KavalamJisha,142theKeralaHighCourtheldthatifamarriagewassolemnizedbetweentheparents,thebenefitofSection16wouldhavebeenaccordedtothechildren.Butifitisestablishedthattherewasnomarriagebetweentheparents,thechildrenbornofthisrelationshipcannotacquirethebenefitsofSection16.Onthisground,thecourtrejectedtheclaimofthedaughterofthedeceasedtoinherithisproperty.
(p.153) Inanotherextremelynegativeruling,KesariBaiv.Parwati,143theMadhyaPradeshHighCourtheldthatchildrenbornoutofarelationshipwithamistressarenotentitledtoasuccessioncertificate,evenifnominatedbythedeceasedduringhislife-time.Thelowercourthadupheldtherightofthesechildren.Inappeal,thehighcourtsetasidethisorderandheldthatthestatusofsuchawomanisnotthatofamarriedwife.Thewomanhadstatedthatshehadgonethroughamarriageceremonybyexchangeofjaimala.ButthecourtheldthatsincethepartieswereBrahmins,saptapadiisanessentialceremonyofmarriage.Sincethewomanhadnotgonethroughanysuchritual,shecannotbeheldtobethewife/widowofthedeceased.Thecourtcommentedthatawomancanclaimherrightsonlywhenthecouplehasundergoneamarriageceremony.Otherwise,ifsheislivingtogetherwithapersonwithoutundergoingavalidlegalformofmarriage,itwillbedeemedthatsheismerelya‘keep’andnotawifeandthereisadifferencebetweenawifeandamistress.
Thisjudgmentiscontrarytoseveralrulingsdiscussedearlierinthissectionandarereflectiveoftheanti-womenbiaswithinthejudiciary.ButperhapssincethechildrendidnothavetheeconomicmeanstochallengeitintheSupremeCourt,therulingsremainedbindingonthem.
RightsofWomeninInformalRelationships
ProlongedCohabitationandPresumptionofMarriage
Thelawpresumesinfavourofmarriageandagainstconcubinagewhenamanandwomanhavecohabitedcontinuouslyforanumberofyears.
1929PrivyCouncilinMohabhatAliv.Md.IbrahimKhann.144
Thediscussiononsuccessionrightsofchildrenofvoidmarriagesbringsustoournextpoint—presumptionofmarriagewhicharisesduetolongcohabitation.Evenwhenthereisnoproofofanyceremoniesofmarriagehavingbeenperformed,thecourtswouldleantowardsvalidityofmarriagebasedonthepresumptionofmarriageunderSection114oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Section50oftheIndianEvidenceActprovidesadditionalsafeguards.Theseprovisionsstipulatethatthepresumptioninfavourofmarriageisnotmitigatedorweakenedmerelybecausetheremaynotbeconcreteevidenceofanymarriagehavingtakenplace.Insuchcases,thecourtswillexaminewhetheracommonperceptionprevailedthatthecouplearemarried.Ifthepartiescohabitedforlongtime
![Page 40: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 40 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
andifsociety(forexample,thepeopleoftheareainwhichthepartiesresided)recognizedtheirrelationshipasamarriage,presumptionwouldarisethattheyarelegallywedded.
In1952,theSupremeCourt,inMohammedAminv.VakilAhmed,whiledecidingthesuccessionrightsofaMuslimwifeandherchildren,reliedupontheprincipleofpresumptionofmarriage.Thevalidityofmarriagewaschallengedbyotherrelativeswhowereclaimingthepropertyofthedeceased.Therewerenodocumentstoprovethemarriagebutthecouplehadlivedtogetherfor23–4yearsandfourchildrenwerebornoutoftheirrelationship.Basedonthisfactandonotherfacts,suchasthatthehusbandhadpurchasedpropertyinthenameofhissonsandhadmentionedthemashissonsinthesaledeed,thecourtinvokedthepresumptionofalawfulmarriage.
ThetheoreticalframeworkforthispresumptionwasprovidedbythePrivyCouncilin1929intheMohabhatAlicaseandwas,subsequently,followedbytheSupremeCourtintheMohammedAmincase.Thatcaseconcerneda(p.154) Muslimmarriagewherebigamyispermittedandthenotionofconcubinageisshunned.ThiswasalsopronouncedatatimewhenbigamywaspermittedevenundertheHindulaw.ButthesituationchangedaftertheenactmentoftheHinduMarriageActin1955.Section5(i)oftheActreadwithSection11stipulatesthatbigamousmarriagesarevoid.Butwhilemonogamywasthestatutorydictate,atthegroundleveltherewashardlyanychange.Customarypracticesandcommunitynormscontinuedtovalidatebigamousmarriages,thoughlegallytheyweredeemedasvoidanddevoidofanyrights.
Confrontedwithdiversepractices,itwasleftforthecourtstofindaviamediatodojusticeandprotecttherightsofwomenandchildrenwithinthesepluralistictraditionsandsocialrealities.Itisinthecontextofsafeguardingtherightsofinnocentchildren,whowerebeingdeprivedoftheirrightsandwerefacingsocialstigma,thatthelegislaturebroughtinanamendmenttoSection16HMA(andSection26ofSMA)andbestowedrightsofmaintenanceandsuccessiononchildrenofmarriageswhichwerevoid,irrespectiveofwhethertherewasajudicialdecreetothiseffect.Thisledtoagradualrecognitionoftherightsofillegitimatechildrenorchildrenofvoidmarriages,butwomencontinuedtosuffergreathardships,particularlyafterthedeathoftheirhusbands.Theirrightswereseverelyconstrainedornegatedinlitigationinitiatedbythechildrenfromtheirhusbands’previousmarriageorotherrelatives.
Technically,themovetoawardrightstoillegitimatechildrenofvoidmarriageswouldhavevalidatedtherightsofallchildrenwhowerebornininformalrelationships.Butthecourtswentintoafurthergradationbetweenawifeofavoidmarriageandameremistress.Aswehaveseenintheprecedingsection,therewassomerecognitionawardedtochildrenwhoseparentshadgonethroughsomeceremony,asopposedtothosewhohadnot.Thewomenwhocouldnotprovetheritualsandceremonieswererelegatedtoaderogativepositionofamistress,concubine,orkeep,andhadtoendurenotjustjudicialcontemptbutalsolossoftheireconomicrights.
Thewomenwhoweredeprivedoftheirstatusandrightsthroughthemandateof
![Page 41: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 41 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
monogamy,introducedbytheHinduMarriageActof1955,hadtosufferforfiftyyearsbeforesomerecognitioncouldbeawardedtothem.TherehadbeenanattempttovoicetheirconcernsthroughtheenactmentoftheDomesticViolenceAct,2005,andbestowsomesocialstatusandlegalrightsonwomenwhowerepartofaprevailingsocialsystemandyetcouldbebrandedthus.
TheDVAtransformedtheyesteryearconcubinesintopresentdaycohabiteesandtheirrighttoprotectionfromdomesticviolenceandrightsofmaintenanceandresidencehavebeenawardedstatutoryrecognition.Whilesomemaydismissthetermcohabiteeasawesternorurbanphenomenon,thistermcannowbeinvokedtoprotecttherightsofthousandsofwomen,bothurbanandrural,whowereearlierscoffedatasmistressesorkeepsinthejudicialdiscoursebecauseofsometechnicaldefectintheirmarriage.TheDVAdoesnotclearlyprescribewhetherthenewtermcohabiteewillsafeguardtherightsofwomenwhowereearlierdenigratedasconcubinesandmistresses.Thatisleftforjudicialinterpretation.Butithelpstobringthedebatetoanewerplane.
TherecentrulinginNarinderPalKaurChawlav.ManjeetSinghChawla145hasaninterestingcommentregardingtheinstitutionofconcubinage.ItwasheldthatHindulawrecognizesthe(p.155) institutionofmarriageaswellasconcubinagewhichisreflectedintheprovisionsofSection18(e)ofHAMA146andsuggestedthatthisconceptneedsfurtherdilationandjudicialrecognitioninordertobringinanotionofjusticetowomen.RegardingtheprotectionsawardedtowomenininformalrelationshipsundertheancientHindulaw,thecourtcommented:
OneofsuchrecognizedobligationsinscribedintothepropertyofaHinduwasthatofmaintenanceofdependents.Thereisnoreasontoholdthatbycodificationofthelaws,thisbasicconceptforprovidingasortofsocialsecurityandhavinggeneralinsuranceinfavourofdependentshasbeencompletelytakenawayorabrogatedbyenactingHAMA.ThenecessitytoprovideevennowmayariseoutofthepremisesofthatActandwillhavetobesoworkedout.
Thecallforawiderdebateissalutaryandalsotimely.Inthiscontext,weneedtoexaminethejudicialpronouncementsoftheprecedingyearswhichhadattemptedtoraisethisconcern,thoughnotasclearlyandforthrightlyastheNarenderPaljudgmenthasattemptedtodo.ButtheNarenderPalrulingbuildsontheseearlierlegalprecedents.
IntheleadingcaseBadriPrasadv.DyDirectorofConsolidation,147in1978,adistinguishedbenchoftheSupremeCourtcomprisingofV.R.KrishnaIyerJ.,D.A.DesaiJ.,andO.ChinnappaReddyJ.,laiddownthatifamanandwomanhavelivedashusbandandwifeforaboutfiftyyears,underSection114ofIEA,astrongpresumptionarisesinfavourofwedlock.Althoughthispresumptionisrebuttable,aheavyburdenliesonhimwhoseekstodeprivetherelationshipoflegalorigin.Thecourtreiteratedthatthelawleansinfavouroflegitimacyandfrownsuponbastardy.Itwasheldthatthecontentionthatlongaftertheallegedmarriageevidencehasnotbeenproducedtosustainitsceremonialprocess,byexaminingthepriestorotherwitnesses,deservesnoconsideration.Thecourtcommentedthatifamanandwomanwholiveashusbandand
![Page 42: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 42 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
wifearecompelledtoprovehalfacenturylaterbyeyewitnessevidencethattheywerevalidlymarried,fewwillsucceed.
Morerecently,inRadhammav.UnionofIndia,148thefactofmarriagewaschallengedbythemotherofthedeceasedinthecontextofsuccessionrights.TheKarnatakaHighCourtheldthatlongco-habitationbetweenthedeceasedandconcernedwomanwasprovedandthesocietytreatedthemasamarriedcouple.Therehadnotbeenanyallegationmadeagainstthewomanthatthedocumentsproducedbythewifewereconcoctedorforged.Hersignatureswerealsoadmitted.Thewomanconcernedandthesonofthepetitionerlivedashusbandandwife,andthiswaswithintheknowledgeoftheappellantandherfamilymembers.Hence,thecourtcommentedthataveryheavyburdeniscasteonthepersonwhochallengesthevalidityofsuchamarriage.
InDnyanobaKamblev.MuktaKamble,149thefactthattherespectiveparentshadrecognizedthepartiesasamarriedcoupleandthatthehusbandhimselfhadacceptedthewomanashiswifewasheldtobesufficienttoconsiderthemarriagevalid.Whileupholdingtheorderofmaintenanceawardedbythefamilycourt,thehighcourtcommented:‘Consideringthatthewifeisnotaneducatedladyandshecomesfromabackwardcommunity,therecannotbeanydocumentaryevidenceonanyoftheseaspects.(p.156) Theseaspectsaretobeconsideredfromanappropriateangle.’
InRajlinguv.Sayamabai,150whenthewifefiledformaintenancethehusbandallegedthatsheishissecondwifeand,hence,themarriageisvoid.Heproducedtheearlierwifeandadaughterbornthroughthatmarriageaswitnessestoprovehiscase.Thepresentapplicationwasfiledin1993.Butthewifehadearlierfiledformaintenancetwicein1971andin1973andonbothoccasionsacompromisewasreached,andthepartiesagreedtolivetogetheramicably.Atthattime,thehusbanddidnotraisethepleaabouthisearliermarriage.Thiscontentionwasraisedforthefirsttimein1993whichthecourtheldwasamereafterthought.Whiledismissinghisappeal,thehighcourtheldthattheconductofthepartiesinsuchmattersplaysaverydominantroleindeterminationoftherelationshipofhusbandandwife.
SobhaHymavathiDeviv.SettiGangadharaSwamy151raisesaslightlydifferentbutrelatedquestioninthecontextoflegitimacy.152Contrarytothegeneraltrend,herethedaughterclaimedillegitimacy,whichwouldhaveawardedhercertainadvantagesSinceaccordingtolaw,anillegitimatechild’sidentityisattachedtohermother,andnottothefatherasincasesoflegitimatechildren,sheclaimedillegitimacysothatherelectioninthereservedcategorywouldbeheldasvalid.Ironically,basedonpresumptionthatlongcohabitationleadstoapresumptionofvalidmarriage,thecourtsconferredonherlegitimacywhichprovedtobedisadvantageoustoher.
Shehadmarriedherfirstmaternalcousin,whobelongedtoabackwardcaste.Butherpleawassetasideonthebasisthatherfatherwasnotfromabackwardcaste.Soshepleadedthatshewastheillegitimatechildofherparentssincehermother’spreviousmarriagewithamanfromherowncastewassubsistingwhenthemothermarriedherfather.ThemotherbelongedtotheBhagathaCommunity(ascheduledtribe)whileher
![Page 43: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 43 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
fatherhailedfromaslightlyhighercaste.Thoughshedeniedmarriage,sheadmittedtoprolongedcohabitationfromwhichsheandfiveothersiblingswereborn.Sinceanillegitimatechildacquiredhermother’scaste,shepleadedthatherelectioninthecategoryreservedforscheduletribeswasvalid.ThehighcourtrejectedherpleaandheldthatshewasthelegitimatechildofherfatherandhenceitcouldnotbeheldthatsheisamemberoftheBhagathaCommunity.Onthisgroundherelection,contestedinthereservedcategory,wassetaside.
Inappeal,theSupremeCourtupheldtherulingofthehighcourtonthegroundthatprolongedcohabitationleadstothepresumptionofavalidmarriage.Hence,itwasnotpossibletoholdthatitwasonlyarelationshipofconcubinage.Evenassumingthattherewasanearliermarriageofthemothersubsisting,itcanbepresumedtohavebeenterminatedinviewofthesubsequentlongcohabitationofthecouple.
Though,personallythewomanconcerneddidnotgain,theSupremeCourtrulingisimportantinbridgingthegapbetweena‘voidsecondmarriage’and‘mereconcubinage’basedonthelegalpresumptionprolongedcohabitationleadstoavalidmarriage.Itwillbestowcertainlegitimacyanddignityuponchildrenofsuchunionsandservetoovercomeprevailingjudicialbiasesinthisrealm.
Section125ofCr.PC:BeneficialProvision,notDeterminationofMaritalStatusThesuccessionclaimsarecivilsuitsandthecourtsareempoweredtoexaminethemaritalstatusoftheparties.Butwhileawarding(p.157) maintenancetowomenunderSection125ofCr.PC,themagistratedoesnothavethepowertoexaminethevalidityofmarriageastheproceedingsaresummaryinnatureandithasbeenenactedasameasureofsocialjustice.
InSunitaKavitaMorev.VivekanandMore,153theBombayHighCourtcommentedthatinproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PC,themagistrateisnotcompetenttodecidethevalidityofmarriage.Thepropercourseinsuchcasesistograntmaintenancetothewife.Itisuptothehusbandtoestablishinvalidityofmarriageinacompetentcivilcourt.Inthiscase,thewomanwasdrivenoutofthematrimonialhomeandwhensheclaimedmaintenance,thehusbanddeniedthemarriageandthecohabitation.Healsoallegedthatthewifewasinanillicitrelationshipwithanotherpersonandhadbecomepregnant,andhedeniedpaternityofthechild.Thewifepleadedthattheywerechildhoodfriendsanduponapromiseofmarriageshehadcohabitedwithhimandhadachild.Thetrialcourtupheldthewoman’sclaimandawardedhermaintenanceofRs250permonth.Thesessionscourtreversedtheorderonthegroundthatthemarriagewasnotproved.Thehighcourtupheldthewife’sclaimregardingcohabitationandpaternityofthechildandrestoredtheorderoftheMagistrate’scourt.
InPradeepGuptav.KantiDevi,154theJharkhandHighCourtreaffirmedthatstrictproofofmarriageisnotnecessarywhileawardingmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.Theevidenceofpersonsresidinginandaroundthearea,whohadformedanopinionthatthepartieswerelivingashusbandandwife,washeldtobesufficienttoprovethewife’scase.
![Page 44: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 44 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InKrishnaChandraJeraiv.StateofJharkhand,155thetrialcourtrejectedtheapplicationformaintenancebythewifeonthegroundthatshecouldnotprovethemarriage,thoughthefactoflongcohabitationwasnotdisputedbythehusband.Inrevision,thesessionscourtawardedRs500asmaintenancetothewife.Thehighcourtdismissedtheappealfiledbythehusbandandheldthatstrictproofofmarriageisnotrequiredinsummaryproceedings.ThecourtalsoheldthatanorderunderSection125ofCr.PCdoesnotfinallydeterminerightsandliabilitiesofparties.Thepartiesareentitledtofileacivilsuitfordeterminationoftheirrights.
InShyamlalPathakv.StateofBihar,156inacriminalcomplaintfiledbythewifeunderSection494ofIPC,thehusbandwasacquitted.ButthemagistrategrantedmaintenanceofRs400permonthtothewomanunderSection125ofCr.PC.Inappeal,itwasheldthattheproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PCareofsummarynatureandtheproofofmarriageisnotashighasinproceedingsunderSection494orinaproceedingfordivorce.Allthatisrequiredtobeshownisthattherehasbeenmarriagebetweenthewomanandtheman.Ifsheisabletoshowthatsheandthemanconcernedlivedtogetherashusbandandwife,thecourtcanpresumetheyarelegallymarriedandawardmaintenanceevenwhenthemarriageisdisputedbythehusband,leavinghimtoestablishinvalidityofthemarriageinacompetentcivilcourt.
InRamakrishnanv.Subadra,157thewifepleadedthatshewasmarriedin1979aspercustomaryritesandtheylivedtogetherashusbandandwife.In2003,therewasanestrangementbetweenthemandshefileda(p.158) petitionformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.Thehusbandadmittedcohabitationforalongperiod,butcontendedthatitwasnotcohabitationasalegallymarriedcouple.Heallegedthatshewashisdistantrelativeandlivedinhishouseasadomestichelp.Hecontendedthathewasmarriedin1966andhadachildfromthisrelationship.Toprovehiscase,healsocontendedthathispreviouswifewasawardedmaintenancein1980.Thewifeproducedtherationcardandelectoralcardtoprovethattheywerecohabitingtogetherashusbandandwife.TheCourtconcludedthatthesubsistenceofavalidmarriagehadbeensatisfactorilyestablished.
ThehighcourtupheldtheorderofMagistrate’scourtandheldthatunderSection125ofCr.PC,acriminalcourtisnotjurisdictionallycompetenttomakefinalandauthenticpronouncementsonthedisputedstatusofthemarriage.Thatjurisdictionvestsincivilcourts.Thehusbandisentitledtoapproachacivilcourtforobtaininganappropriatedeclarationregardingthevalidityofthemarriage.ThehusbandcontendedthatonlybecausehecouldnotproducetheorderpassedbyaMagistrate’scourtawardingmaintenancetohisearlierwifeintimeintheMagistrate’scourt,thepresentclaimantwasawardedmaintenancewhichhadresultedinmiscarriageofjustice.Inresponse,thehighcourtcommented:Nojustifiablereasonshavebeenadvancedtoexplainwhythemaintenanceordergrantedtothefirstwifeearlierbythecourtwasnotproducedbeforethecourtsbelow.Thescandalousdelayinthejudicialprocessiscertainlyattributableinparttotheunrestrainedyearningofthecourtstodosubstantivejustice.Inlife,onedoesnotgetanopportunitytostartthegameafresh.Whatlifeanddivineor
![Page 45: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 45 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
nature’sjusticecannotoffer,litigationcannotobviouslyaspireto.Theimpressionthatanyandeveryerrororinadequacycommittedintheconductofthecasecanberectifiedlater,andcourts,intheirindulgenceandanxietytodojustice,wouldpermitthepartiestocorrecttheirerrors,settheclockback,andproceedafresh,hascertainlycontributedinnomeanmeasuretothescandalousdelayinthejudicialprocess.Thelawhasbeenwellsummarizedinthestatementthattheinterestsofjusticemay,attimes,transcendtheinterestsofmerelaw.
InLakhwinderKaurv.GurmailSingh,158themagistrateawardedmaintenanceofRs500permonthtothewifeandRs300permonthtothedaughter,respectively,underSection125ofCr.PC.Thehusbandhaddeniedthemarriageandpleadedthathisearliermarriagewassubsisting.Thesessionscourtupheldthisplea.Inappeal,thePunjabandHaryanaHighCourtsetasidetheorderofthesessionscourtandrestoredtheorderoftheMagistrate’scourtandheldasfollows:TheorderpassedbythemagistrateinproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PCdoesnotfinallydeterminetherightsandobligationsoftheparties.Forthepurposeofgettinghisrightsdetermined,thehusbandhadfiledacivilsuitfordeclarationthatthewomanisnothislegallyweddedwife.Thesaidsuitwasdismissedbythecivilcourtonthegroundthattheevidenceadducedbythehusbandwasnotsufficienttoprovethatthewomanconcernedwasnothislegallyweddedwifeandthedaughterwasnothislegitimatechild.Thefindingsofthecivilcourtwerebindingnotonlyonthepartiesbutalsoonthecriminalcourt.Further,thestrictproofwhichisrequiredtoproveanoffenceunderSection494ofIPCisnotrequiredinproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PC.IfthewifesucceedsinprovingthatsheandtheRespondentlivedtogetherashusbandandwife,thecourtcanpresumethattheyarelegallymarried.
(p.159) TheSupremeCourthasalsoupheldthisviewinDwarikaPrasadSatpathyv.BidyutPrayaDixit159andlaiddownthatproofofvalidityofmarriageforthepurposeofsummaryproceedingunderSection125ofCr.PCisnotasstrictasisrequiredinatrialofoffenceunderSection494oftheIPC.Further,theorderpassedinanapplicationunderSection125ofCr.PCdoesnotfinallydeterminetherightsandobligationsoftheparties.InVeenaDeviv.AshokKumarMandal,160thePatnaHighCourtheldthattheproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PCareofasummarynature,andarenotintendedtodeterminethestatusandpersonalrightsofpartiesandquestionsofmarriageneednotbedecidedlikeamatrimonialcourt.Evenwhentheissueisbeingdeterminedbythefamilycourtwhichhasthejurisdictiontodeterminethematrimonialstatusoftheparties,thecourtcannotexaminethisissueinproceedingsunderSection125Cr.PC.
MaintenancetoWomeninLive-inRelationshipsunderPWDVAMorerecently,theProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct,2005hasawardedstatutoryrecognitiontoinformalrelationshipsorlive-inrelationships.Undertheprovisionofthisstatute,anywomanwhoclaimsreliefsuchasprotectionorders,restrainingorders,orevenmaintenance,neednotprovethevalidityofhermarriage,asheldbytheMadrasHighCourtinM.Palaniv.Meenakshi.161Inthiscase,themanhadfiledanapplicationforadeclarationthathewasnotmarriedtothewomanconcernedandforan
![Page 46: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 46 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
orderofinjunctionrestrainingherfromrepresentingandreceivingthebenefitsashiswife.Inthesaidproceedings,thewomanfiledanInterimApplicationformaintenanceundertheProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct,2005.Thefamilycourt,Chennai,grantedherRs1,000permonthasinterimmaintenance.
Thiswaschallengedbytheappellent,whocontendedthatthewomanisnotentitledtoanymaintenanceundertheprovisionsofDVAsincetheyhavenotlivedtogetheratanypointoftimeashusbandandwife.However,headmittedthattheyhadvoluntarysexualcontactbutallegedthatthewomanhadvoluntarysubmittedtosexualcontactdespiteknowingfullywellthathedoesnotbelieveintheinstitutionofmarriageandthatthewomanherselfhadnotinsistedonaformalmarriage.Hadtherebeenevenaslightreferencetomarriageasapre-conditiontothesexualcontact,hewouldneverhavehadeventhecasualsexualcontactwithher.Further,mereproximityforthesakeofmutualpleasurecanneverbecalledadomesticrelationship,heargued.Rejectingthisargument,theMadrasHighCourtheldthatthereisnostipulationundertheActforthepartiestolivetogetherforaparticularperiod.Sincethemanhadadmittedtosexualcontactitwasevidentthatthecoupleenjoyedacloserelationshipwithinwhichsexualcontacthadtakenplace.
TheconstitutionalvalidityofthisprovisionwaschallengedintheDelhiHighCourtinArunaParmodShahv.UnionofIndia,162onthegroundthatitdiscriminatesagainstthelegalwife.Whileupholdingitsvalidity,thehighcourtheldthatthereisnoreasonwhyequaltreatmentshouldnotbeaccordedtothewife,aswellasawomanwhohasbeenlivingwithamanashiscommon-lawwifeorevenasamistress.Thecourtfurthercommentedthatliketreatmenttobothdoesnot,inanymanner,derogatethesanctityofmarriage.
(p.160) SincethisconceptisrelativelynewtotheIndianjurisprudence,itwouldbeusefultodrawuponthefollowingguidelinesissuedbyacourtinSouthAfrica,fordeterminingtherightsofwomeninrelationshipsinthenatureofmarriage.
i.Thecommitmentsofthepartiestothesharedhousehold;ii.Theexistenceofasignificantperiodofcohabitation;iii.Theexistenceoffinancialandotherdependencybetweenthepartiesincludingsignificantmutualfinancialarrangementsvis-à-visthehousehold;iv.Theexistenceofchildrenoftherelationship;and,v.Theroleofthepartnersinmaintainingthehouseholdandinthecareofthechildren.
InChanmuniyav.VirendraKumarSinghKushwahatheSupremeCourtwhiledecidingacaseunderSection125Cr.PC,referredthematterofmaintenancetowomenininformalrelationshipstoalargerbenchinviewoftheconflictingopinionsoftheSupremeCourtinSavitabenSomabhatBhatiya(discussedearlier)andseveralpositiverulingswhichhadgrantedmaintenancetowomenininformalrelationshipsandbigamousmarriages.
ThedivisionbenchofG.S.SinghviandA.K.GangulyJJrecommendedthatabroadandexpansiveinterpretationshouldbegiventotheterm‘wife’toincludethosecaseswhere
![Page 47: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 47 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
amanandwomanhavebeenlivingtogetherashusbandandwifeforareasonablylongperiodoftime,andstrictproofofmarriageshouldnotbeapre-conditionformaintenancesoastofulfillthetruespiritandessenceofthebeneficialprovisionofmaintenanceunderSection125,Cr.PC.Itwassuggestedthatthebenefitsawardedto‘live-inrelationships’underthePWDVAshouldbeextendedtowomenclaimingmaintenanceunderSection125oftheCr.PCassuchaninterpretationwouldbeajustapplicationoftheprinciplesenshrinedinourConstitution.
Thecaseconcernedawidowwithtwodaughters,whohadmarriedherhusband’syoungerbrotherasperthecustomofthecommunity.Duringsuchmarriages,saptapadiisnotperformed.AsperthecustomoftheKushwahacommunity,themarriagewasperformedthrough‘katha’and‘sindur’.Whenherhusbanddesertedher,thewifefiledformaintenance.Whilethetrialcourtupheldherplea,thehighcourtheldthathermarriagewasnotvalidsincesaptapadiwasnotperformed.
Whilethisreferencewaspendingbeforethelargerbench,alaterrulinginD.Velusamyv.D.PatchaiammaldeliveredbyMarkandeyKatjuandT.S.ThakurJJon21October2010createdafreshcontroversybyconstrainingthescopeofPWDVAbyholdingthat‘mistresses’,‘keeps’and‘maids’withwhomamarriedmanmayhavehadsexualrelationshipsarenotentitledtomaintenance.Thisrulingleavesthegroundwideopentomentoenterintobigamousrelationshipwithoutanycivilorcriminalliability.Therulingshiftstheburdenonwomentoprovethattheirrelationshipisnotbigamous,disregardingcommunitypracticesaswellasthefraudmencommitbynotrevealingtheirpriorsubsistingmarriage.Duetothedifficultywomenfacetoprovetheirmarriages,thePWDVAhadsoughttograntmaintenanceandcompensationtowomenin‘live-inrelationships’.Evenpriortothis,severalrulingsoftheSupremeCourtandvarioushighcourtshadprotectedtherightsofvulnerablewomentrappedinsuchsituations,andthereferencetoalargerbenchinChanmuniyacasewasmadetoobtainaclearandunambiguousverdictindefenseofwomen,whichwouldoverruletheverdictintheSavitabencase.
(p.161) TherulinginVelusamycaseisdevoidofthecautiousapproachadoptedinChanmuniyacase.Theruling,whichseemstobebasedonamoralhighgroundandWesternethosdisregardsIndiansocialrealityasreflectedinthenumerousjudgementsdiscussedearlier.Thelargerbench,willhopefullyundotheharmcausedbythisrecklessandinsensitiverulingwhichviolatestheconstitutionalmandateofprotectingthedignityofwomen,andrestoretherightsofwomenininformalandbigamousrelationships.
MuslimWomen’sRighttoMaintenance
Notionof‘FairandReasonableSettlement’UndertheMuslimWomen’s(ProtectionofRightsonDivorce)ActTheMuslimWomen(ProtectionofRightsonDivorce)Actwasenactedin1986,afterthecontroversialShahbanojudgment.Throughthisenactment,therightofadivorcedMuslimwomanwastakenoutofthepurviewofthegenerallawofmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCandplacedunderspeciallegislation.163Aftertheenactment,several
![Page 48: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 48 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
groupsfiledwritpetitionsintheSupremeCourtchallengingtheconstitutionalvalidityoftheAct.Whilethewritpetitionswerepending,severalhighcourtsbegantointerprettheActinnovatively.TheyheldthatadivorcedMuslimwomanhastherighttoafairandreasonablesettlementforherlifetime,inadditiontomaintenanceduringtheiddatperiod.164Further,thecourtscommentedthatafairandreasonableprovisionforthewoman’sfutureneeds(mataaoonbilma’aroofe)isaQuranicinjunction.
TheleadingjudgmentoftheSupremeCourtonthisissuewaspronouncedin2001inDanielLatifiv.UnionofIndia.165TheSupremeCourtconfirmedthattheMWAhassubstitutedtheearlierrightofrecurrentmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCwithanewrighttoalumpsumprovisiontobemadeandpaidtothewomansoonafterherdivorce.Ifthehusbandfailstomakethesettlement,adivorcedMuslimwomanhastherighttoapproachtheMagistrate’scourtforenforcementoftherightunderSection3oftheMWA.
ThecourtheldthataMuslimhusbandisliabletomakeareasonableandfairprovisionforthefutureofhisdivorcedwife,whichmustbemadewithintheiddatperiod.ThecourtfurtherclarifiedthattheliabilityoftheMuslimhusbandtothedivorcedwife,topaymaintenanceundertheAct,isnotconfinedtotheiddatperiod.AMuslimwifeisentitledtoafairandreasonableprovisionwithrespecttoherfutureneeds.166
Incaseswherethehusbandisunabletopaytheentireamount,theFullBenchoftheBombayHighCourt,inKarimAbdulRehmanShaikhv.ShehnazKarimShaikh,167heldthattheamountcanbepaidininstalments,anduntilthepaymentismade,themagistratecandirectmonthlypaymenttothewifeevenbeyondtheiddatperiod.
InMustafav.Fathimakutty,168thehusbandwasemployedabroad.Thecourtheldthatthe(p.162) husband’scontentionthatafterthecircumstanceswhichledtodivorcehebecamedistractedandwasnotabletoconcentrateonworkisafancifultheorywithnothingtangibletosubstantiatethesame.ThecourtawardedalumpsumofRs1.20lakhwhichwascomputedatRs2,000permonthforfiveyearsasmaintenanceofthewifeandtwochildren.
InHaseenav.AbdulJaleel,169itwasheldthattheprovisionforeducationalexpensesisanimportantcriteriontofixthequantumofreasonableandfairprovision.Itwasheldthatadivorcedwomanwhohaslostthesupportofherhusbandcansustainherselfandmaintainherchildonlybygettinganeducation.Denyingawomaneducationalsupportisnotjustifiedinsuchcircumstances.Thoughaformerhusbandcannotbeentrustedwiththeliabilitytoprovideforthehighereducationofhisdivorcedwife,whichisexpensive,thedesireofthewifetocontinueherstudiescannotbesaidtobeunreasonable.ItwasheldthatthefactthatthewomanwasstudyingatthetimeofhermarriageandshewantedtocontinueafterdivorceisnotanirrelevantfactorinfixingthequantumofreasonableandfairprovisionandmaintenanceunderSection3(1(a)oftheMuslimWoman’sAct.Inlightofthis,theamountpayablewasincreasedfromRs2,00,000toRs2,50,000.
![Page 49: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 49 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InNizarv.Hyrunneessa,170theKeralaHighCourtrejectedthepleathatsincethewifehadremarried,sheisnotentitledtoafairandreasonablesettlementforthefuture.Thecourtheldthatthere-marriageofadivorcedwomanisnotacriterionindeterminingafairandreasonablesettlement.TheonlyaspecttobeconsideredistheliabilityoftheformerhusbandtomakeareasonableandfairprovisiontothedivorcedwifeandfixthequantumsumascontemplatedunderSection3(3)oftheAct.ThecourtawardedRs90,000calculatingtheamountonthebasisofRs1,500permonthandcommentedthattheamountawardedasfairandreasonablesettlementcannotbesetasideonapleathatthedivorcedwifeisleadinganadulterouslife(seealsoM.Alaviv.T.V.Safia,I(1992)DMC62).
Ifthehusbandfailstocomplywiththeorderanddefaultsinpaymentsoftheamountordered,hecanbeimprisoned.InRayinkuttyv.StateofKerala,171itwasheldthatthis,initself,willnotabsolvehimfromtheliabilityofpayingtheamountwhichisduetothewife.
RightsUnderSection125ofCr.PCWhenadesertedordestituteMuslimwifefilesformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC,theusualployadoptedbythehusbandistopleadthathehasalreadydivorcedhiswifeandhenceheisnotliabletopaymaintenance.ThistendencyincreasedaftertheMuslimWomen(ProtectionofRightsonDivorce)Actwasenactedin1986.ThemediareportsonthisenactmentledtoapopularperceptionthataMuslimhusbandisnotliabletopaymaintenancetoadivorcedwife.
Intheleadingcase,ShamimArav.StateofUP.172theSupremeCourtheldthatamerepleaofpreviousdivorceinthewrittenstatementcannotbetreatedasapronouncementoftalaqbythehusbandonthewife.Theliabilityofthehusbandtopaymaintenancetohiswifedoesnotcometoanendthroughsuchcommunication.Thecourtcommentedthatfortalaqtobevalid,ithastobepronouncedaspertheQuaranicinjunction.Severallaterjudgmentshavereiteratedthisposition.Someofthesejudgmentsaresummarizedlater.173
(p.163) Whenthehusbandisnotabletoprovetalaq,thetrialcourtisboundtoentertainthewife’sapplicationformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCandawardanadequateamountastheabovecasediscussedindetailillustrates.Butthereareseveralotherrulingswhichendorsethisview.Forinstance,inMusaratJahanv.StateofBihar,174itwasheldthatadivorcedMuslimwifeisentitledtomaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCcontinuouslyandbeyondtheiddatperiodtillsheremarries,orisabletomaintainherself.Inresponsetothewife’sclaimformaintenance,thehusbandpleadedthathehaddivorcedhiswife.Thecourtcommentedthatthefamilycourtjudgehaderredinholdingthatthewifeisentitledtomaintenanceonlyfromthedateoffilingtheapplicationtillthecopyofthewrittenstatementwasserved.
InKhairunnissaBegumv.Aslamkham,175itwasheldthattherecannotbeapresumptioninfavouroftalaq.Talaqhastobestrictlyproven.Sincethehusbandcouldnotprovetalaq,thewifewasawardedmaintenanceofRs1,000permonthunderSection125ofCr.PC.
![Page 50: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 50 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InMoidenv.Ramlath,176thehusbandpleadedthatthewomanishissecondwifeand,hence,isnotentitledtomaintenance.Healsopleadedthathehadsubsequentlyremarried.Thecourt,whileupholdingthewoman’srighttomaintenance,statedthatthefactthatsheisdivorcedorthatherhusbandhasanotherwife,whichispermittedunderpersonallaw,isirrelevantinadjudicatingtherightsofthedivorcedwife.
InMuneerAhmedv.SafiaMateen,177whilerejectingthehusband’spleathathehaddivorcedhiswife,thecourtawardedRs1,000asmaintenance.Thecourtdescribeditasthebareminimumforkeepingbodyandsoultogetherinthecontextofthepresentcostofliving.Thecourtheldthatsincethewomanissufferingfromvariousdiseases,shewouldneedmoneyforhermedicalexpensesinadditiontohermaintenance.
Though,therightsofdivorcedMuslimwomenwereplacedunderaspecificAct,theMuslimWomen’sAct,somecourtshaveheldthattherightunderSection125ofCr.PChasnotbeendeleted.Forinstance,inAbdulLatifMondalv.AnuwaraKhatun,178thehusbandchallengedtheorderofmaintenanceawardedbytheMagistrate’scourtonthegroundthathehaddivorcedhiswifetwoyearspriortoherfilingtheapplicationformaintenance.ButtheCalcuttaHighCourtrejectedthiscontentionandheldthattheMuslimdivorcedwifeisentitledtoclaimmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCandthesameareinadditiontoherclaimsundertheMWA.
ButtheviewsofvariousotherhighcourtsaswellasthatoftheSupremeCourtinNoorSabaKhatoonv.Mohd.Quasin,179arecontrarytothisview.HeretheCourtheldthatafterdivorce,therightofaMuslimwifearelocatedwithintheMuslimWomen’sActandnotunderSection125Cr.PC.InShaikhMohamedv.Naseembegum,180theBombayHighCourtheldthatadivorcedMuslimwomancannotapplyformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.Herremedyisonlyunderthespeciallawenactedforthispurpose,thatis,theMuslimWomen’sAct.InAbdulSalamv.GousiyaBi,itwasheldthatanorderofmaintenancethatwaspassedinfavourofthedivorcedwifeunderSection125ofCr.PCwasunsustainable.
MorerecentjudgmentshavereaffirmedthatMuslimwoman’srighttoclaimmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCarenotextinguished(p.164) upondivorce.TherightisextinguishedonlywhenshereceivesafairandreasonablesettlementasstipulatedunderMWA.InIqbalBanov.StateofU.P.,181itwasheldthatproceedingsunderSection125arecivilinnature.Henceevenafterthedivorce,thewomanisentitledtoclaimmaintenanceunderthisSection,consideringitsbeneficialnature.InShabanaBanov.ImanKhan,182theSupremeCourtheldthatwheresociallegislationsenactedtosecuretherightsofneedywomenareconcernedadherencetorigidrulesofprocedureandevidenceshouldbeavoided.ThecourtheldthatifapetitionfiledbythewifeunderSection125ofCr.PCispendingbeforeafamilycourtatthetimeofherdivorce,thesamemustbedisposedofundertheprovisonsofMWAanduntilsuchtimesheshouldbeawardedmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCTheKeralaHighCourtinKunhimohammedv.Ayishakutty183hasheldthatahusband’sobligationtopaymaintenanceisnotextinguishedupondivorce.Thewifewillbeentitledtoreceive
![Page 51: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 51 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
maintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCuntilthehusbandfulfillshisobligationunderSection3oftheMuslimWomen’sActoruntilthewiferemainsunmarried.ThesejudgmentshaveplacedtherightofMuslimwomentomaintenanceunderasecurefooting.
SectionB:Maintenance:IncidentalandProceduralAspects
MaintenanceRightsofChildren
StatutoryandPiousObligationofaFathertoMaintainhisChildrenTheobligationofthefathertomaintainhischildrenisbothapiousandreligiousobligationaswellasastatutorydutyunderallpersonallaws.InVinodBabbarv.BabySwati,184theDelhiHighCourtexplainedthatunderHindulaw,afatherhasnotonlyamoralbutevenastatutoryobligationtomaintainhisminorchildren.Thescopeofhisdutyistoberegulateddirectlyinrelationtothemoneyandstatusheenjoys.Therightofmaintenanceofachildfromhisfathercannotberestrictedtotwomealsaday,butmustbedeterminedonthebasisofthebenefit,status,andmoneythatthechildwouldhaveenjoyedifhewaslivingwithhimaspartofhisfamily.Irrespectiveofthedifferencesandgrievanceswhicheachspousemayhaveagainsttheother,theendeavourofthecourthastobetoprovidethebesttothechildunderthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcaseand,moreso,keepingthewelfareofthechildinmindforallsuchdeterminations.Liabilitytomaintainone’schildrenisclearfromthetextoftheprovisionsunderHAMA,aswellasthevariousdecidedcasesinthisregard.Thestatutoryobligationisparamounttothewishofthefatherandhecannotbepermittedtolimitthisclaimofthechildonflimsyandbaselessgrounds.Itisthedutyandliabilityofparentstoprovidetheirchildthebesteducationandstandardoflivingwithintheirmeans.Thefactthatthechildislivingwiththemother,whohassufficientincome,willnotabsolvethefatherofhisobligationstowardsthechild.
InP.M.Devassiav.Ancy,185aChristianfatherchallengedhisdutytomaintainhisdaughterwhowaslivingwiththemother.TheKeralaHighCourtexplainedthattheobligationofaChristianfatherspringsfromthefactthatheistheguardianofhisfamily.Thus,hehasanobligationtomaintainhischildrenandcarriesthedutytogivethemthebestcare,and,necessarily,thereisacorrespondingdutytomaintainthem.(p.165)Therewasalsoacorrespondingrightthatthechildhastherighttobemaintained.Thehusbandhadnotdisputedthepaternityofthechildrenandthemarriagewassubsisting,buttheparentswerelivingseparatelyandthechildrenwerelivingwiththemother.Thefatherhadadecentincome.ThecourtcommentedthatitcannotbecontendedthatmerelybecauseoneprofessestheChristianreligion,onedoesnothavetheliabilitytomaintainone’schildren.Inviewofthelawwhichislaiddown,aChristianfatherhasanobligationtomaintainhisdaughters,whoarenotcapableoflookingafterthemselves,notwithstandingthefactthattheyhaveattainedmajority.
ThepersonalobligationofaMuslimfathertomaintainhischildrenisintegrallylinkedtohisproperty.Explainingthisposition,inIbrahimFathimav.MohammedSaleem(Minor),186theMadrasHighCourt,afterexaminingthepositionunderMohammedanlaw,heldthat
![Page 52: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 52 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
thechildren’srighttomaintenanceinaMuslimhouseholdalwaysattachestothefather’spropertyinsuchawayandinsuchmeasurethatitisnotaffectedbyanysubsequentalienationofthepropertybythefather.ThefactthattheMuslimfather’sobligationtomaintainhisminorchildrenispersonaldoesnotmeanthattheonlysanctionwhichthelawimposes,fortheperformanceoftheobligation,istoproceedagainsthispersonwheneverhefailstodischargethatobligation.Itisquitereasonableandcivilizedtoexpectallsystemsoflawtolinkchildren’smaintenancewithpropertyassecurityandMohammedanlawisnotanexception.Inthecontextoftherelationshipbetweenafatherandhisminorchildren,allthattheideaofpersonalobligationimportsisthatheisunderadutytomaintainthemevenonthemereaspectofhisbeingtheirparent.
InK.MasthanBeev.AppalagariVenkataramana,187theAndhraPradeshHighCourtreaffirmedthispositionandheldthattheaMuslimfatherisunderalegalobligationtomaintainhischildrenundertheMuslimpersonallawandifhehasalienatedanypropertyprejudicialtotheinterestoftheminors,theyareentitledtocreateachargeunderSection39oftheTransferofPropertyAct,1882,overthesaidproperty.ItismandatoryonthepartofthecourtstonotifyunderOrder21,Rule66oftheCivilProcedureCode(CPC)totheintendingbuyersthatthepropertyundersaleissubjecttosuchencumbranceorlitigation.
SingleMothersandClaimsofChildrenintheirCustodyTheabovediscussionmakesitamplyclearthatthelegalobligationofmaintainingthewifealsoextendstoanobligationtomaintainminorchildren.Butinthecourseofamatrimonialdispute,inordertocausefurtherhardshipstodesertedwomenandsinglemothers,severallegaltacticsareadoptedtodenychildreninthecustodyoftheirmothertheirlegalrightsofmaintenance.Whiledenyingpaternityisoneployusedtoescapefromtheliabilityofmaintainingthechild,thereareseveralotherswhichhavebeenadvancedinthecourseoflitigation.Thehusbandshavegonetotheextentofdenyingthatthereisastatutoryobligationtomaintaintheirchildren.
InPraveenMenonv.AjithaPillai,188thehusbandcontendedthatSection24oftheHMAimpliedmaintainingonlythewifeandnotthechild.ButrejectingthiscontentiontheKeralaHighCourtheldthatabeneficialprovisioncannotbeinterpretedsorestrictivelyandthatthefather’sobligationtomaintainthechildmustbe(p.166) readintohisobligationtomaintainthewife.Sincethewifehadtomaintainthechild,itwasheldthatthehusbandhadtopaythewifeanamountthatwassufficienttomaintainthechildtoo.InPrakashKhotv.ChandaniKhot,189itwasheldthatawardingmaintenancetothewifeunderHMAwillnottakeawaytherightoftheminorchildrentoclaimmaintenancefromtheirfather,underSection20oftheHinduAdoptionandMaintenanceAct.InMandeepSharmav.KiranSharma,190itwasheldthatthefactthatthewifewasbeingsupportedbyherparentswasnogroundforthehusbandtoclaimdischargeofhisobligationtopaymaintenancetothechild.Itwasalsoheldthatthehusbandcouldnotshirkhisliabilitytoprovidemaintenancemerelyonthegroundthathemetwithanaccidentandhadtotemporarilyrestrainfromworkingduetohisinjuries.
Thecourtshavealsoheldthattherightsofminorchildrencannotbedefeatedthrough
![Page 53: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 53 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
consentagreementsbetweenthechild’sparentsorthroughdivorcedeeds.InHappyAnandv.BabyDeepali,191thedaughter,whowasonlysevenyearsoldatthetimeofthedivorce,filedformaintenanceandwasawardedmaintenanceofRs2,500permonth.ThehusbandhadagreedtopayRs50,000tothewifeinproceedingsformutualconsent,buthadpaidonlyhalftheamount.Inappeal,thehighcourtupheldtheorder.InDeepaDeviv.DhirajKumarSingh,192thewifecontendedthatherconsentforadivorcebymutualconsentwasfraudulentlyobtainedbyherhusbandandthehusbanddidnotmakeanyprovisionformaintenanceforherselfandherminorchild.TheJharkhandHighCourtheldthatthatSection13B(divorcebymutualconsent)doesnotempowerpartiestodecidetherightsofminorchildrenregardingmaintenanceanddirectedthehusbandtopayRs2,00,000tothewifeandtheminorsonbywayoflumpsummaintenance.
Whileaminorchildisentitledtomaintenance,assoonasthechildattainsmajoritythechildisdeniedmaintenance.Thisplacesanadditionalburdenonsinglewomensincemostoftenthechildwouldnotbeindependentattheageofeighteenandwouldstillneedsupportuntilthechildcompletestheeducation.Somejudgesadoptalenientviewandmandatethehusbandtocontinuewithpaymentofmaintenance/educationalexpensesforafewmoreyearsuntilthesoncompleteshiseducationandisabletosupporthimself.Butusuallymaintenancewillbediscontinuedassoonasthechildturnseighteen.Thereissomeleniencytowardsdependentmajordaughters.Butifshehasanindependentsourceofearning,themaintenancewouldbediscontinued.
InAvnishPawarv.SunitaPawar,193thecourtheldthatthemajorsonwasnotentitledtomaintenancefromthefather,andtheexceptionunderSection20(3),HAMAcoversunmarrieddaughtersbutnotmajorsons.ThispositionwasreiteratedinViswambhranv.Dhanya,194whereitwasheldthattheliabilitytomaintainthechild,whateverbethesex,wouldcontinueonlytillthechildattainsmajority.Then,irrespectiveofwhetherchildisabletomaintainitselfoutofitsearningsorotherproperty,itwouldnotbemaintainedifitisamalechild.
However,therulingofthePunjabandHaryanaHighCourt,inNikhilKumarSinghv.RakeshKumarMahajan,195advancesamorehumaneapproachtowardsmaintenanceofsons(p.167) whohavenotyetcompletedtheireducation.Inthiscase,thesonhadfiledanapplicationformaintenancewhilehewasaminorandwasgrantedinterimmaintenanceofRs5,000permonth.Whenthesonattainedmajority,thefathermovedthecourtforcancellationofthemaintenanceorderonthegroundthathisobligationtomaintainhissonhadcometoanend.Inanappealagainsttheorderofcancellationofthemaintenanceamountfiledbytheson,thehighcourtheldthatthemajorsonwasentitledtoclaimmaintenancefromhisfatherforstudiesanddirectedthefathertopayRs8,000permonthtowardshiseducationalandotherrelatedexpenses,andRs25,000lumpsumperannumtowardsadditional/ancillaryexpenseslikepurchaseofbooks,instruments,etc.Thecourtdirectedthatthisarrangementshallremaintillthesoncompletedhiseducationuptothepost-graduationlevel.
Butsofarasthefemalechildisconcerned,suchrightwillcontinueevenaftersheattains
![Page 54: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 54 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
majorityuntilshegetsmarried,providedsheisunabletomaintainherselfoutofherownearningsorotherproperty.Forinstance,inJitendraNathSarkarv.DaliaSarkar,196itwasheldthatamajorunmarrieddaughterisnotentitledtomaintenanceifshehasanindependentsourceofincome.Itisonlywhensheisabletoprovethatsheisunabletomaintainherselfthatherparentsareliabletomaintainher.
AsperthecustomsprevailingamongseveralcommunitiesinIndia,afatherisboundtomakeprovisionsforthemarriageexpensesofhisdaughters.Thecourtshaveawardedjudicialrecognitiontothiscustomaryright.InKusumKrishnajiRewatkarv.KrishnajiNathujiRewatkar,197itwasheldthatafatherisboundtomakeprovisionsforthemarriageexpensesofthedaughtersaspartofmaintenance.Ifthewifehasspentfortheperformanceofmarriageofdaughter,thehusbandwouldbeliabletoreimbursehiswife.Hecannotescapehisliability.
Thecourtshavealsoupheldtherightsofadoptedchildrentomaintenancefromtheirfather.WeldoneLyngdohv.EvaPhawa,198isacaseconcerningachildbelongingtotheKhasicommunity.Thecustomarylawofthecommunityrecognizesthenotionofadoptionandthechildisentitledtoclaimmaintenancefromitsadoptivefather.WhileupholdingtherightoftheadoptivechildformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC,theGauhatiHighCourtheldthatthedominantpurposebehindthebenevolentprovisionsengraftedinSection125clearlyisthatthewife,child,andparents,shouldnotbeleftinastateofdistress,destitution,andstarvation.Havingregardtothisspecialpurpose,theprovisionsofSection125ofCr.PCshallhavetobegivenaliberalconstructiontofulfilandachievetheintentionofthelegislature.
InLeelaYadavv.StateofBihar,199theapplicationfiledbythegrandmotherofthetwominorchildrenformaintenancefromtheirfatherwasdismissedbytheMagistrateonthegroundthatshelackslocusstanditofileformaintenanceonbehalfoftheminorchildren.Themotheroftheminorchildrenhaddiedunderunnaturalcircumstancesandatthetimeofherdeath,hadhandedoverthecustodyofhertwodaughterstohermother.Inappeal,thehighcourtheldthatthequestionofcustodyisamattertobedecidedbyacivilandnotcriminalcourt.TherightwhichisconferredunderSection125ofCr.PCformaintenanceisnotdependentonguardianship.Maintenancetochildrenlivingwitheithermother,orevengrandmother,(p.168) cannotberefusedonthegroundthattheyarenotnaturalguardians,lawfulguardians,orlegalguardians.Thehusbandpleadedthatheiswillingtotaketheircustodybutheisnotinapositiontoprovidemaintenance.Thedaughterswhowereinterviewedrefusedtogowiththefatherandtheystatedthataftertheirmother’sdeaththeirfatherhadnotcaredforthem,andhadnoloveandaffectionorattachmenttowardsthem.ThecourtcommentedthatthefatherhasnotclaimedthecustodyandguardianshipofthechildrenandheldthattheprovisionsunderSection125ofCr.PCarenottobeutilizedfordefeatingtherightsconferredbythelegislatureondestituteandneedychildren.
RightsofChildrenofDivorcedMuslimCoupleAftertheenactmentoftheMuslimWomen’sAct,therewereseveralapplicationsfiledbyhusbandstoabsolvethemnotjustoftheobligationofmaintainingtheirwivesbeyondthe
![Page 55: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 55 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
iddatperiodbutalsooftheirresponsibilityofmaintainingtheirchildren.TheconfusionwascausedbythewordingsofSection3(b)oftheAct.
Section3(b):Wheresheherselfmaintainsthechildrenborntoherbeforeorafterherdivorce,areasonableandfairprovisionandmaintenancetobemadeandpaidbyherformerhusbandforaperiodoftwoyearsfromtherespectivedatesofbirthofsuchchildren.
WhilemostcourtsupheldtheexistingrightsofchildrentoclaimmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC,insomeinstances,thecourtsheldthatthechildisentitledtomaintenanceonlyuptotheageoftwo.TheambiguitywasfinallyresolvedbytherulingoftheSupremeCourtinNoorSabaKhatoonv.Mohd.Quasin,200in1997,whichupheldtherightsofchildrenunderSection125ofCr.PCinclearandunequivocalterms.ThetrialcourthadgrantedRs200tothewifeandRs150toeachofthethreeminorchildren.Meanwhile,thehusbandhaddivorcedthewifeandapproachedthecourtformodifyingtheorder.Thetrialcourtheldthatthedivorcedwifeisnotentitledtomaintenancebeyondtheiddatperiodand,accordingly,revokedtheorderofmaintenanceforthewife,butupheldthemaintenanceforthechildren.Therevisionapplicationwasdismissedbythesessionscourt.Butinappeal,thehighcourtcancelledthemaintenanceorderoftheeldertwochildrenwhowereabovetheageoftwoyears.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthehusbandhasanobligationtomaintainhischildrentilltheyattainmajorityorareabletomaintainthemselves,whicheverdateisearlier.
ThispositionwasreaffirmedinMahaboobAliv.AbdulRasheed201bytheKarnatakaHighCourt,whichheldthattheobligationofafathertomaintaintheminorchildrenisabsolute,irrespectiveofreligion.AsfaraschildrenbornofMuslimparentsareconcerned,thereisnothinginSection125ofCr.PCwhichexemptsaMuslimfatherfromhisobligationtomaintainhischildren.Itwouldindeedbeunreasonable,unfair,unequitable,andevenpreposterous,todenythebenefitofSection125ofCr.PCtothechildrenonlyonthegroundthattheyarebornofMuslimparents.
Similarly,inRiazFatimav.Mohd.Sharif,202thecourtreaffirmedthattherightofthechildtogetmaintenanceisnotaffectedevenafterthefatherhasdivorcedthemotherofthechild.ThecourtsetasidetheorderoftheSessionsJudgeandrestoredtheorderoftheMagistrate’scourt.InMufeesv.StateofUP,203thedaughterhadapproachedthecourtformaintenanceandthefamilycourthadawardedherRs1,000permonthasmaintenance.Inanappealfiledbythe(p.169) father,thehighcourtupheldthemaintenanceawardedtoherbythefamilycourt.
MaintenanceClaimsAgainstBothParentsThough,traditionallytheobligationtomaintainthechildrenwasalwaysuponthefather,ifthemotherisalsoemployed,bothparentsareboundtocontributeforthemaintenanceofthechildinproportiontotheirrespectiveincomes.
InPadmjaSharmav.RatanLalSharma,204bothparentsweregainfullyemployed.Butthehusbandearnedtwiceasmuchasthewife.TheSupremeCourtheldthatboththe
![Page 56: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 56 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
parentsareboundtocontributetowardsthemaintenanceoftheirchildren,proportionately.ThecourtawardedasumofRs3,000permonthtowardsmaintenanceofeachofthechildrenanddirectedthatthesameshouldbebornebyboththeparentsin2:1proportion.Thecourtrejectedthemother’sclaimonthegroundthatshehadsufficientearning.
InSayaliPathakv.VasantPathak,205theDelhiHighCourtclarifiedthatmaintenanceisnotgrantedaspenaltyagainsteitherofspouses.Thepurposeistoensurethatpartiesareabletomaintainastandardoflivingthatisincloseconsonancewiththatenjoinedbythemasafamilypriortotheoutbreakoftheirmatrimonialdifferences.Inthisparticularcase,thewifeearnedapproximatelyRs40,000permonthandthehusbandRs1,00,000permonth.Thecourtheldthatthereisnoreasontodeprivethechildofanaffluentlifestyleandculturalexposureiftheparentscanaffordit.Sincethewifeherselfhadsubmittedthattheexpensesofthechildshouldbesharedinratioof2:1,keepingtheirrespectiveearningsinperspective,thecourtdirectedthehusbandtocontributeRs12,000permonthtowardthemaintenanceofthechild.
TheAndhraPradeshHighCourt,inN.SreeRamuduv.N.Lahari,206alsoendorsedthisviewandheldthatsinceboththemotherandfatheroftheminorchildaregainfullyemployedandarehavingequalfinancialcapacity,theresponsibilityofmaintainingthechildoughttobesharedequally.
OtherSubstantiveIssues
HusbandGuiltyofMatrimonialFaultWhenadesertedwifeapproachesthecourtsformaintenanceandisonthevergeofreceivingafavourableorderdirectingthehusbandtopaymaintenance,aploy,whichisoftenused,istosubmittothecourtthatheiswillingtoreconcilewithhiswifeandiswillingtomaintainher.Attimes,apetitionforrestitutionofconjugalrightsisalsofiledtodefeatthewoman’sclaimofmaintenance.
Ifthewomanrefusestoaccepttheofferwithoutareasonableandjustifiablecause,hermaintenanceclaimcanbedefeated.Butifthewifeisabletoproveamatrimonialfaultsuchasbigamy,adultery,andcruelty,thecourtsareboundtoupholdthewoman’sclaimofseparateresidenceandmaintenance.Thecourtshavealsoheldthatifthehusbandmakesbaselessallegationsofadulteryandunchastityagainstthewife,sheisentitledtoliveseparatelyandclaimmaintenance(BaishnabCharanJenav.RitaraniJena).207
Ifthehusbandisimpotentandisunabletofulfilhismaritalobligations,thewifewouldbejustifiedinlivingseparately.Forinstance,inAshokKumarSinghv.Addl.SessionsJudge,Varanasi,208theSupremeCourtupheldthe(p.170) woman’srightofmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PConthegroundofhusband’simpotency.InPoonamGuptav.GhanshyamGupta,209thehusband,arichandprosperousbusinessman,hadremarried.Consideringthestatusofthefamiliesandthebasicrequirementformaintenanceofwifeandchild,costsofchild’seducation,upbringing,etc.,thehighcourtofAllahabadupheldthelumpsumofRs8,00,000awardedtoherasjustandproper.InPuliyullaChalil
![Page 57: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 57 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
NarayanaKurupv.ThayyullaParabhathValsala,210theKeralaHighCourtheldthatthewifeisfullyjustifiedinrefusingtolivewiththehusbandasthehusbandwaslivingwithanotherwomanandhadthreechildrenthroughher.InSangeetaKumariShawv.StateofWestBengal,211thewifewascompelledtoleavethematrimonialhomeduetomentalandphysicalcrueltyoverdemandsfordowry.TheCalcuttaHighCourtupheldthewoman’srighttoliveseparatelyandclaimmaintenance.InMohanlalv.LadKunwarBai,212thehusbandcontractedasecondmarriage.TheMadhyaPradeshHighCourtheldthatonthisgroundthewifewasentitledtoliveseparatelyandgetmaintenancefromherhusband.
InVinodKumarJollyv.SunitaJolly,213afterdivorcinghissecondwife,thehusbandhadmarriedforthethirdtimeandhadtwochildren.Thecourtcommentedthatifthehusbandcanhavetheluxuryofathirdmarriageandcanbringupthechildrenbornofthesaidmarriage,heshouldownresponsibilityofthetwoearlierwivesandpaythemmaintenance.ThewifewasawardedRs1,500permonthandthesonwasawardedRs2,500permonthwhichthecourtcommentedwouldhardlyensuretheirbareexistence.
EvenunderMuslimlaw,thewifeisentitledtoresideseparatelyandclaimmaintenanceifthehusbandhascontractedasecondmarriage,hasamistress,orvisitswomenofillrepute.InBegumSubanuv.A.M.AbdulGafoor,214theSupremeCourtheldthatirrespectiveofthehusband’srighttotakeasecondwifeunderthepersonallaws,uponhisremarriage,thewifeisentitledtoclaimmaintenanceandseparateresidence.Thecourtheldthattheprovisionofmaintenancemustbeconstruedfromthepointofviewoftheinjurytothematrimonialrightsofthewifeandnotwithreferencetothehusband’srightofremarriage.
InMumtazBegumv.YusufKhan,215whenthehusbandremarried,thewifelefthermatrimonialresidenceandclaimedmaintenance.Herapplicationwasrejectedonthegroundthatthehusband’sremarriageisnotasufficientreasontoliveseparatelyandclaimmaintenance.Onappeal,theRajasthanHighCourtheldthatthehusbandcannotdenymaintenancetothefirstwifebytakingrecourseunderthepersonallawspermittingbigamy.
InKadeejav.Aboobacker,216thewifeandherfourminorchildrenwereawardedRs200permonthmaintenanceunderthepersonallaw.Sincethehusbanddidnotpay,thewifefiledforrecovery.Onthehusband’spleathathehasnomeanstopaythearrears,thecourtdismissedherapplication.ThewifechallengedtheorderinthehighcourtwhichheldthatunderMuslimlawhusbandisboundtomaintainhiswife,solongashehastheabilitytoearn.Thecourtcannotexaminethehusband’searningswhileenforcingmaintenanceorders.
(p.171) InSirajmohmedkhanJanmohamadkhanv.HafizunnisaYasinkhan,217thehusbandwasimpotentandwasunabletodischargehismaritalobligations,whichthecourtheldwasthemainobjectiveofmarriage,moreparticularlyunderMohammedanlawwheremarriageistreatedasasacrosanctcontractandnotapurelyreligiousceremonyasinthecaseofHindulaw.Thecourtcommented:‘Whenahusbandis
![Page 58: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 58 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
impotentandisunabletodischargehismaritalobligations,itwouldamounttobothlegalandmentalcrueltywhichwouldundoubtedlybeajustground,ascontemplatedbySection125(3)ofCr.PC,forthewife’srefusaltolivewithherhusbandandthewifewouldbeentitledtomaintenancefromherhusbandaccordingtohismeans.’
Ashabiv.BashasabTakke218isanothercasewherethehusbandhadremarried.Rejectingthewife’sapplicationformaintenance,thefamilycourtheldthatthewifewasnotabletoprovethatthehusbandhaddesertedher.Inappeal,theKarnatakaHighCourtheldthatthewifecannotbedeniedmaintenanceonthegroundofnotjoiningherhusbandinviewofthehusband’sremarriageandhence,sheisentitledtoliveseparatelyandclaimmaintenance.
UnderMuslimlaw,failuretoprovidemaintenanceisagroundforthewifetodissolvehermarriage.219
Husband’sObligationtoMaintaintheWifeThehusbandhasalegalobligationtomaintainhisdependentwife.Unlessthewifeisguiltyofaseriousmatrimonialoffence,thecourtswillupholdthewoman’sclaimofmaintenance,oftenoverridingthehusband’sallegationsofadultery,immorality,denialofmarriage,contestationofpaternity,etc.Evenwhenthewifeisnotabletoprovideproofofherhusband’sincome,thecourtswillgrantmaintenancetothewifeandchildren,usingthecriterionofminimumwagesonthepremisethatanablebodiedman,whoiscapableofearningalivelihood,hasalegalobligationtomaintainhiswife.Onlywhenthehusbandisold,infirm,orphysicallyormentallydisabled,hewillbeabsolvedofhisobligationtomaintainhiswife.
InRajeshKumarv.StateofBihar,220itwasheldthatahusbandcannothidebehindthepleaofhisunemployment.Thecourtcommentedthatinanycasehemustbemaintaininghimselfwithwhatevermeans.
InMeenuChoprav.DeepakChopra,221itwasheldthatthestatusofthewife’sparentsisanirrelevantconsiderationwhiledecidingtheissueofmaintenance.Theonlydeterminingfactorforconsiderationisthestatusofhusband.Thehusbandhadpleadedthatsincethewifecomesfromafamilywithmodestmeans,theamountofRs20,000awardedasinterimmaintenancewasexcessive.TheDelhiHighCourtheldthatifthehusbandiswealthyandisleadinganopulentlife,hiswifealsohastherighttobeapartnerinhisprosperityandlivewiththesamestandard.
Evenwhenthewifeisbeingsupportedbyherparents,thehusbandisnotabsolvedfromhisobligationofmaintaininghiswife(Radhakumariv.M.K.Nair).Thecourtswillnotacceptthehusband’scontentionthatthewoman’sownparentsarewelloffandcanprovideforher,orthatshedoesnotneedmaintenanceassheislivingwithherparents.
InG.C.Ghoshv.SushmitaGhosh,222thetrialcourtawardedRs5,500tothewifeasmaintenanceandRs2,000forherseparateresidence(p.172) fromthedateoffiling.Thehusbandpleadedthatsincethewifewaslivingwithherparents,shehadnotactually
![Page 59: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 59 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
spentthisamountandhencewasnotentitledtothesame.Whileupholdingtheorderofthetrialcourt,theDelhiHighCourtmadethefollowingscathingcomments:
Thehusbandislivingwithanotherwife.Theentitlementofthewifetoliveseparatelyisnotindispute.Inthefirstinstance,thehusbandrefusestomaintainhiswifeandprovidehershelter.Hemarriesanotherwomanandwalksoutofherlife.Hedoesnotgivehermaintenanceorprovideforseparateresidencetowhichsheislawfullyentitled,forcinghertoliveseparatelyonherown.Sheisforcedtoresorttolitigationandhusbandpleadsthewifeisnotentitledtomaintenanceforperiodduringpendencyofthesuitasshehadallegedlynotspentanysuchamountonhermaintenanceoronseparateresidence.Thisiswhollyunjust.Section18ofHAMAisabeneficialprovisionforthepurposeofsecuringadecentlivingforaHinduwifeandtoamelioratethesufferingsofadesertedwife.Theseprovisionsmustbeconstruedinamannerwhichbetterservestheendsoffairnessandjustice.Whensuchlawsaremade,itispropertoassumethelawmakersenactlawswhichthesocietyconsidersashonest,fair,andreasonable,and,thus,justiceandreasonconstitutethegreatgenerallegislativeintentinsuchapieceoflegislation.Thecourtsmustleantowardsaninterpretationwhichisjustreasonable,andfair.Iftheinterpretationsuggestedbythehusbandisaccepted,itwouldoffendtheverysenseofjustice.Thehusbandcannotavoidhisobligationunderthelawbytakingshelterofsuchingeniouspleas.
Thefactthatthesonismaintainingthewifecannotbeusedasadefencetodefeatthewoman’srighttoclaimmaintenancefromherhusband.InMerubhaiMandanbhaiOdedarav.RanibenMerubhaiOdedara,223upholdingthewoman’srighttomaintenance,thecourtcommentedthatthesoncannotbemadeliableforthewife’smaintenanceunlessthehusbandhasdiedorotherwisehasnosourceofincome.InRattanBalav.PrahladAggarwal,224theDelhiHighCourtcommentedthatthetrialcourterredindeclininginterimmaintenancetothewomanmerelyonthegroundthatsheisnotadestituteassheissupportedbyherson,whoisaqualifiedCharteredAccountant.Thecourtcommentedthatthehusbandislegallyandmorallyobligedtomaintainhiswife.
Ifthehusbandisoldandinfirm,heisabsolvedoftheobligationofmaintainingthewife.InMugappav.Muniyamma,225wherethehusbandwas75yearsoldandthewife65years,andthesixchildrenwereallemployedandwellplacedinlife,theKarnatakaHighCourtsetasidetheorderofmaintenanceandheldthatthepetitionfiledbyherwaswithmalafidemotive.Thecourtcommentedthatifherneedisgenuine,shecouldhavesuedhersonsforprovidingmaintenance.
ArecentjudgmentdeliveredbytheDelhiHighCourtbringsacurioustwisttothelegalpremise,‘anablebodiedman’byextendingthisnotiontowomen.Inthiscase,RituRajKantv.Anita,226itwasheldthatmaintenanceistobeawardedonthebasisofactualearningsandnotbyapplyingthenotionofanablebodiedperson.Thewifefailedtoprovideanyproofofherhusband’searnings.WhilequashingtheorderofthetrialcourtawardingherRs1,500permonthasmaintenance,thecourtcommentedthatthewifeisequallyablebodied.
![Page 60: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 60 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
MaintenancetoWorkingWomenThough,theprinciplebehindtheconceptofmaintenanceistoprovideeconomicsecurityforthosewhoareunabletomaintainthemselves,incertaincases,adoptingapro-womenpolicy,thecourtshaveruledthataworkingwifeorone(p.173) whoisqualifiedtoworkisalsoentitledtomaintenance.Ifthewomanisearningameagreamount,whichisnotsufficientforhertomaintainherself,orifshehassecuredatemporaryjob,thecourtshaveheldthatthewomanisentitledtomaintenance.Also,incaseswherethereisgreatdisparitybetweentheincomeofhusbandandwife,thecourtswillstrivetobringinsomeparitybyawardingmaintenancetothewife.Although,theamountsawardedarefarbelowtheexpectationsofmiddleandaffluentsectionsofwomen,thecourtsattempttohelpdivorcedandseparatedwomentomaintainacertainstandardoflivingandnotrenderthemdestituteandforcethemtoliveinpenurybyvirtueoftheirdivorceorseparation.
InRajathivC.Ganesan,227theSupremeCourtexplainedthattheexpression‘unabletomaintainherself’wouldmeanthemeansavailabletothedesertedwifewhileshewaslivingwithherhusbandandwouldnottakewithinitselftheeffortsmadebythewifeafterthedesertiontosomehowsurvive.TheapexcourtalsopointedthatSection125ofCr.PCwasenactedonthepremisethatitistheobligationofthehusbandtomaintainhiswifeandchildren.ThispositionwasreiteratedbytheGauhatiHighCourtinWeldoneLyngdohv.EvaPhawa.228
InChaturbhujv.SitaBai,229theSupremeCourtheldthatitisnotnecessarythatthewifemustbeabsolutelydestitutebeforeshecanapplyformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.Similarly,inJohnsonJosephv.AnitaJohnson,230itwasheldthattheexpression‘unabletomaintain’doesnotmeanthatsheshouldbeadestitutebeforeshecanapplyformaintenance.Thecourtalsocommentedthataworkingwomanisrequiredtospendmorethanahousewifeasshehastoworkinofficeandkeepherhousehold.ThewifewasearningRs1,800permonthandthehusband’ssalarywasRs7,500permonth.ItwasheldthatRs1,000permonthawardedtoherasmaintenancewasnotunjustorunreasonable.
InSheelaDeviv.SwarupNarainBijoria,231thetrialcourtdeclinedtograntmaintenancetothewifeonthegroundthatshewasearningsomeamountofmoneybyrollingbeedis.Inappeal,theAllahabadHighCourtawardedherRs500asmaintenanceandheldthatthefactthatthewifewasearningameagreamountcannotbeagroundtorefusehermaintenance.Thehusband,whowasagovernmentemployee,wasdrawingahandsomesalary.
InAnitaSharmav.RamjilalSharma,232thewifewasworkingasanAnganwadiworkerandearningRs1,000.Thecourtheldthatthisamountwasnotsufficienttomeettheneedsofpresentdaylife.ThehusbandwasearningRs8,500,hence,itwasheldthatthewifeisentitledtoamaintenanceofRs750permonth.
InMuraleedharanv.Vijayalakshmi,233thecourtaddressedtheissueofmaintenancetoeducatedwomenandheldasfollows:‘Qualificationbyitselfcannotbeheldtobe
![Page 61: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 61 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
synonymouswithabilitytomaintainone’sself.Themerefactthatwifehasqualificationisnotsufficientipsofactotoconcludeshewasinapositiontomaintainherselfatthetimewhentheclaimwasmadeorbeforethespousesstartedlivingseparately.Themerefactthatafterseparationonsomeoccasionssheworkedasateacherinsomeschoolisnotsufficienttotakeheroutofthecategoryofpersonsunableto(p.174) maintainthemselves.Thereisnoadamantrefusalonherparttoengageherselfinanyincomegeneratingactivitytomaintainherself.Itwasclearlyacaseofherinabilitytosecureanysuchincomeearningactivitiesandearnanincomesufficienttomaintainherself.
InSudhirDiwanv.TriptaDiwan,234theDelhiHighCourtawardedmaintenancetoaworkingwomanonthegroundthatthewomanwasdischarginghermoraldutyofmaintainingherchildren.Thisisawelcomeshiftinjudicialapproach,asinmostcasesassoonasthesonturnedmajor,thecourtsdiscontinuethemaintenanceawardedtohim.Inthisinnovativeapproach,thefactthatthewifewhowasemployedwasspendingfortheneedsofthechildrenbecameanimportantcriterionwhileawardingmaintenancetoher.ThehusbandwasworkingasanagentwithLIC,butdidnotdisclosehisincomeearnedbywayofcommission.Basedonhisinvestments,thetrialcourtarrivedatapresumptivefigureofRsFourlakhsperannum.ThewifewasworkingasastenointhedistrictcourtandhernetsalarywasRs19,000permonth.Thesonwasamajorbutwasstillastudent.UpholdingtheorderofawardingRs10,000asmaintenancetoher,theDelhiHighCourtheldthatthewifewasspendingaroundRs7,500onhiseducationalandincidentalexpenses.ShewouldbeleftwithonlyRs12,500permonthforherselfandherminordaughterifthehusbandwasnotdirectedtopayhermaintenance.Sincethehusband’smonthlyincomewouldbearoundRs30,000,hewasdirectedtocontributeatleastonethirdofthisamounttothewifetowardsexpensesofmaintainingthechildren.ThecourtcommentedthatthehusbandwouldstillbeleftwithoverRs20,000forhisownpersonalexpenses.
InAshokKumarBhallav.RoopaBhalla,235thegrossmonthlysalaryofthewifewasaroundRs19,000.Thehusband’ssalarywasaroundRs22,000.Inaddition,hewasearningRs20,000bywayofrentfromhisproperty.ThemonthlyeducationalandotherexpensesofthetwochildrenweredeterminedatRs15,000p.m.Since,theearningsofthehusbandandwifewereintheratioof2:1,itwasheldthattheparentswereliabletosharetheexpensesinthesameratio.AndthehusbandwasdirectedtocontributeRs10,000permonthtohiswifeforupkeepofthetwochildren.
InSushilKumarGuptav.ReenaGupta236andRadhikav.VineetRungta,237twocaseswhicharediscussedinProofofIncomebelow,middleclasswomenhavingmoderateincomeswereawardedmaintenancefromtheiraffluenthusbandstohelpthemtomaintainastandardoflifewhichtheywereusedtointheirmatrimonialhome.
InRekhaMalhotrav.DeepakMalhotra,AIR1999Bom291FN,boththehusbandandwifewereprofessionals.ThehusbandpleadedthathisincomeisonlyaroundRs40,000andthewifeadmittedthatshewasearningRs12,500.Therewerenochildrenofthismarriage.Whenthewifecametoknowaboutthehusband’saffairwithayounggirl,sheleftthematrimonialhomeandwaslivingwithherparents.Thewifehadallegedthat
![Page 62: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 62 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
subsequently,thesaidwomanwaslivinginthematrimonialhomeandalsohadachildthroughherhusband,whichwasdeniedbythehusband.Hepleadedthatthecauseforthebreakofmarriagewasthewife’srefusaltohaveachildasshewasonlyinterestedinherowncareer.Healsopleadedthatsheisabletomaintainherselfandhenceisnotentitledtoanymaintenance.ExaminingtheirlifestyletheBombay(p.175) HighCourtcommentedthattheearningspleadedareonalowersideandtheactualincomeofbothwouldbemuchhigher.Consideringallthefactors,thecourtawardedthewifeRs7500permonthasmaintenancetomaintainalifestylesimilartothatofthehusband.
Therehavealsobeeninstanceswherethecourtshaveheldthatifthewifeisabletomaintainherself,orifthehusband’sstatusisnotmuchabovethatofthewife’s,thewifeisnotentitledtomaintenance.InRakeshv.Smt.Nandu,238theRajasthanHighCourtdismissedthemaintenanceapplicationofthewifewhoearnedRs20–5perdayasadailywagelabourer.Itwasruledthatthestatusofthehusband,whoearnedRs100–150asalabourerwasnotmuchaboveincomparisontohiswifeasbothwereworkingasdailywagelabourers.InSatvendraKumarv.MithleshKumari,239thewifewhowasservingasateacherinapublicschoolandgettingasalaryofmorethanRs6,000permonthwasheldascapableofmaintainingherselffromherownearningsandwasnotentitledtomaintenance.Butthecourtenhancedthemaintenanceawardedtoherdaughter.Theserulingsseemparticularlyharshtowardswomen.
MaintenanceClaimsbyHusbandsThenotionofmaintenancetohusbandsisrelativelynewwithinourfamilylaws.Theancientlegalsystemsdidnotprovideforit.BothHinduandMuslimlegalsystemsfunctionedfromaprotectionistapproachtowardswomen.Muslimlawwentfurtherandprovidedforthefuturesecurityofwivesbysecuringtheirrightofmehrwithinthemarriagecontract(nikahnama)itself.TheancientHindulawsalsoprotectedthewoman’srighttoseparateproperty(stridhan)andforbadethemalerelativesfromusurpingthepropertyanddeprivingthewomanofherrights.
Thecoloniallegalsystem,whichwasintroducedinIndiaduringthelatenineteenthcentury,alsoadoptedaprotectionistapproachtowardswomenandgrantedthemtherightofmaintenanceunderthepersonallawsaswellasunderthesecularlaw,thatis,Section125ofCr.PCandtheSpecialMarriageActof1872(re-enactedin1954)aswellasthelawapplicabletoChristians,theIndianDivorceActof1869(evenafterthe2001amendment)didnotbestowuponthehusbandtherighttoclaimmaintenancefromthewife.Sincetheobligationofmaintenancewasframedwithinthecontextofdependents,therightwasconfinedtowives,minor/disabledchildren,andunmarrieddaughters,whoaredeemedtobetheweakermembersofthefamily.
ThisrightwasfirstgrantedtoHinduhusbandsinthepost-Independenceperiod,underthecodifiedenactment,theHinduMarriageAct,1955(HMA).DuringthecodificationoftheHindufamilylawinthe1950s,theconstitutionalmandateofequalitywasanoverarchingpresence.Sothisrightwasformulatedinthecontextofanillusorynotionofequalitybetweenthespouses.Atthispointinhistory,Hinduwomenwerenotgranted
![Page 63: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 63 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
equalrightstoancestralpropertyandonlyamalewasawardedtherightbybirthtothejointfamilyproperty.In1988,whentheParsiMarriageandDivorceAct,1936(PMDA)wasamended,thisnotionofequalitywasincorporatedwithinit.
Underthesetwoacts(HMAandPMDA),theprovisionofmaintenanceisformulatedinagender-neutraltermusingthewordspousewhichenablesthehusbandtoclaimmaintenancefromhisestrangedwife.Thisreflectsanewtrendinmatrimoniallawsand,apparently,itappearsthatthelawofmaintenanceisinchingtowardsgenderequality.Butsuchsuperficialnotionsofequalityandgenderneutrality,ina(p.176) societywhichisstructureduponpatriarchalpremisesandnurturesdeeprootedbiasesagainstwomen,causemorehardshipstowomenbyentanglingthemintovexatiousandvindictivelitigation.
InLalitMohanv.TriptaDevi,240thehusbandwhodidnothaveindependentsourceofincomewasawardedinterimmaintenance.
Inanotherunreportedjudgment,theAllahabadHighCourtawardedmaintenancetoahusbandinadivorcepetitionfiledbythewife.Thehusbandnotonlyopposedthedivorce,butalsoclaimedmaintenanceandlitigationexpensesonthegroundthatheisunemployed.Thefamilycourthadrejectedtheclaimforinterimmaintenanceonthegroundthatthehusbandwasanablebodiedandhealthyman,capableofearninghisownlivelihoodand,therefore,didnotdeserveanymonetarysupportfromhisspouse.Thehusbandchallengedthisorderinthehighcourt.On7November2005,asinglejudgeoftheLucknowHighCourtallowedtheappealandorderedthewifetopayRs2,000permonthasmaintenancetothehusband.Thecourtexplainedthereasonsforawardingthemaintenanceinthefollowingwords:‘Sincethepetitioner(husband)isresidinginhisownhouseandhastoincurexpensesofhiswidowedmother,hisresponsibilitiesseemtobehigherthanthatoftheRespondentwife.’Whilethewife,‘ahardworkingandenterprisingwoman’isemployedwiththebank,thehusband,a‘happy-go-luckyandlaid-back’person,pleadedthatheisjobless.Itappearedtobeoflittleconsequencethatthewifehadfiledthepetitionfordivorcein1997onthegroundofcrueltyanddowryharassmentbyhusbandandhisfamily.241
Thoughcasessuchastheonediscussedabovearefewandfarbetween,thestipulationprovidesanarmourtohusbandstocausefurtherharassmenttowivesindivorceproceedings.Itappearstoberatherunjustthatwhilecourtshavedeniedmaintenancetoayoungboyofeighteen,whohasnotyetcompletedhiseducationandisdependentuponhisdivorcedmother,onthegroundthatheisanadultcapableofearninghislivelihood,thecourtsentertainapplicationsfromadultmaleswhohaveaprimaryobligationtomaintaintheirwivesandarealsoablebodiedandcapableofearning.Aswecandiscernfromthediscussioninthischapter,women’srightstomaintenancearehingedupontheirchastity.Remarriageorlivinginadulterydisentitlesawomanfromclaimingmaintenance.Thesearegenderednotionswhichareappliedonlytowomen.Thereisnocorrespondingpremisetodisentitleahusbandfromclaimingmaintenance.Astheaboveunreportedcaserevealsmaintenancecanbegrantedtoahusbandwhohasbeenguiltyofcausingviolenceanddowryrelatedharassmenttohiswife.
![Page 64: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 64 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Merelybyadoptingagenderneutralterm,thesegenderednotionswillnotgetdiminishedorfadeaway.Notionsofequalityandgenderneutralitycanmeaningfullybeappliedonlywithinanegalitariansocialstructureandnotwithinapatriarchalandgenderbiasedone.Evenconsideringthatmoreandmorewomenarenowenteringthejobmarketandholdinghigherpositionswithinthecorporateworld,itstilldoesnotjustifytheprovisionofmaintenancetohusbandsunlessthegenderedroleassignedtowomenasprimarycaretakersoftheirchildrenandhomemakersisreversedundersuchasituation.
Clarifyingtheconceptofmaintenancetohusbands,inGovindSinghv.Vidya,242the(p.177) RajasthanHighCourtheldthatthisprovisiondoesnotentitlethehusbandwhoiscapableofearninghislivingtoclaimmaintenancefromhiswife.Theprovisiondoesnotempowerthehusbandtostopearningandstartdependingonhiswife.ThecourtrelieduponthemaximofAngloSaxonjurisprudencethatnopersoncanbeallowedtoincapacitatehimself,andheldthatthehusbandhadvoluntarilyincapacitatedhimselffromearningand,hence,hewasnotentitledtoclaimmaintenancefromhiswife.
EffectofConsentAgreementsRelinquishingtheRightofMaintenanceAttimes,consentagreementsdrawnupeitherduringthemarriageoratthetimeofdivorce,stipulatingthatthewifewouldnotclaimmaintenance,arerelieduponbyhusbandstodefeattheclaimsoftheirwives.Butwhenawifeapproachesthecourtsformaintenance,somecourtshavedeclinedtorelyupontheseagreementsandhavedecidedtheissueofmaintenanceafresh.ThecontestarisesduetoaclauseinSection125(4)ofCr.PCwhichstipulatesthatawifewillnotbeentitledtomaintenanceifsheislivingseparatelyasperanagreementtothiseffect.InKaushalyabaiMulev.DinkarMule,243wherethewiferelinquishedherclaimsofmaintenanceunderadeedofdivorce,itwasheldthatthewifewasentitledtomaintenancedespitethisbecausesuchadeedofdivorcehasneitherthebackingoflaworcustom.
SimilarlyinManokaChatterjeev.SwapanChatterjee,244itwasheldthatinproceedingsfordivorcebymutualconsent,termsofconsentwhichincludeaclausethatthewife,uponreceivingalumpsumamountperpetuallybindsherselffromanyfutureclaimofmaintenance,wasnottenableunderthelaw.ItwasheldthatsinceSection125ofCr.PC.isapieceofsocialwelfarelegislationanditsprimarypurposeistoprotectthewifefromvagrancyanddestitution,evenifthewifebindsherselfconsciouslyorunconsciouslytosuchanagreement,thelawhastocometoheraidandprotectherstatutoryrighttomaintenanceandalsotoherrighttolife,whichprovisionmustmeanalifewithdignity.Itwasheldthatfutureclaimscannotbefrozenmerelybecausethewifewasawardedalumpsumamountatthetimeofthedivorce.Theclaimisflexibleandchangesfromtimetotimeaccordingtochangesincircumstances.Inviewofthisreasoning,theCalcuttaHighCourtsetasidetheparticularclauseintheagreement.
InBiswapriyaBhuiyav.JhumiBanik,245thewifehadfiledfordivorceonthegroundofcrueltybut,subsequently,thepetitionwasconvertedintoapetitionfordivorcebymutualconsentandthewifeagreedforanunconditionaldivorce.Aweeklater,shefiled
![Page 65: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 65 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
formaintenanceunderSection125Cr.PC.ThefamilycourtatAgartala,awardedherRs1,500permonthasmaintenance.Thehusbandchallengedthisorderonthegroundthatsincethewifehadsurrenderedherrightbyagreeingforanunconditionaldivorce,sheisbarredfromclaimingmaintenancesubsequentlyasperstipulationsunderSection125(4)ofCr.PC.ButtheGauhatiHighCourtheldthatthereisnobaragainstthewifefromclaimingmaintenanceatalaterstagesinceshehasnotbeenawardedanymaintenanceinthedivorceproceedings.
[email protected],246itwasheldthatthereisnobartoclaimingmaintenanceifthereisachangeinsituationevenaftermaintenancehadbeen(p.178) awardedatthetimeofdivorcebywayofcompromisebetweentheparties.ThecourtcommentedthatsuchaninterpretationwoulddefeattheveryobjectofSection25.Further,itwasheldthatanagreementdefeatingtherightofmaintenance,providedunderthestatute,beingcontrarytopublicpolicyisnotavalidcontract,andcannotoperateasabartoexercisejurisdictionconferredunderSection25(2)247oftheAct.ItwasheldthatthefamilycourtofHyderabadcommittedanerrorinholdingthatthewife’sclaimisnotmaintainableandremandedthematterbackforretrial.
ButtheBombayHighCourt,inaseriesofjudgments,hasheldacontraryview.InPopatKashinathBodkev.KamalabaiPopatBodke,248thepartieswereresidingseparatelybyanagreementandsomeagriculturallandwastransferredinthewife’sname,andthewifehadsignedadeedofrelinquishment.ItwasheldthatinviewofSection125(4)ofCr.PC,thewifewouldceasetohavearighttoclaimmaintenanceafterexecutionoftheagreementandiftheagreementhasbeenactedupon.
InVitthalJadhavv.HarnabaiJadhav,249thewifewasgivenRs.20,000bythehusbandinaccordancewithanagreementbyvirtueofacustomarydivorce.Thecouplehadagreedtoliveseparatelybymutualconsent.Subsequently,thewifefiledapetitionformaintenanceandwasawardedRs400asmonthlymaintenance.TheBombayHighCourtquashedtheorderoftheJudicialMagistratewhichawardedthewifeRs.400asmonthlymaintenance.Itfurtherheldthattheorderofthemagistratesufferedfromlegalinfirmityasawifelosesherrighttoclaimmaintenancefromherhusbandifsheandherhusbandareresidingseparatelybymutualconsent,inlightofSection125(4)oftheCr.PC.
Similarly,inGajananSolankev.SheelaSolanke,250thewoman’sclaimofmaintenanceafterdivorce,forherselfandherminorsonwhowasbornafewmonthsaftertheconsentdeedwassigned,wasupheldbythesessionscourt.Butinappeal,thehighcourtsetasidetheorderofmaintenanceonthegroundthatsincethewomanhadrelinquishedherclaimtomaintenanceindivorceproceedings,shewasbarredfromclaimingfurthermaintenancebyprovisionofSection127(3)(c)ofCr.PC.251Thehusbandalsodeniedpaternityofthechild.Butthecourtheldthatatthetimeofsigningtheconsentdeedthewomanwaspregnantandthisfacthadnotbeenmentionedintheconsentdeed.Thewomanwasalsonotcrossexaminedonthisissue,hence,thechildwasheldtobethelegitimateandtheamountofRs400permonthawardedtotheminorsonwasupheld.
Attimes,thehusbandshavetakenthepleathatthepartieshavegonethrougha
![Page 66: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 66 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
customarydivorcewherethewifehasrelinquishedherrighttomaintenance.InJairamv.Sindhubai,252itwasheldthatcustomcannotonlybepleaded,buthastobeprovedthatthepartieswereentitledforthecustomarydivorce.Inthiscontext,thedeedofdivorcecouldnothavetheeffecttodissolvethemarriagebetweentheparties.Oncethepartiesaremarried,thesaidmarriagecannotbedissolvedexceptbyadecreeofdivorcepassedundertheprovisionsofthe(p.179) HinduMarriageAct,1955.Theordergrantingmaintenancetothewifecannotberevokedmerelyonthisbasis.
InRajeshKumarMadaanv.Mamta@Veena,253aftercriminalproceedingswereinitiatedbythewifeagainstthehusbandonthegroundofcrueltyanddowryharassment,therewasacompromiseandthehusbandagreedtopayRs4,50,000assettlement.ButaftertheinitialinstalmentofRs50,000onthedateofthecompromise,hedefaultedandlaterfiledfordivorceonthegroundofdesertionandcrueltystatingthatthecriminalproceedingsfiledbythewifeconstruedcruelty.Thecourtrejectedhispleaanddismissedthepetition.Thehusbandchallengedthisorderinthehighcourt.Later,hepleadedthattherewasacustomarydivorcebetweenthem.ThehighcourtheldthatamarriagecanonlybedissolvedbyadecreeofdivorcebyacompetentcourtandnotinanyproceedingsbeforethePanchayat.Thewifeisnottobeboundbyacompromiseunlesssheherselfconsentstothesame.
Whilethereareinstanceswherethecourtshavevalidatedcustomarydivorce,ifthepleaisadvancedtodefeatawomen’srighttomaintenance,thecourtsareboundtorejectthispleaandawardwomentheirstatutoryrights.Hence,acustom,denyingwomenmaintenance,cannotbepleadedassuchacustomisagainstpublicpolicy.
MaintenanceClaimsbyParentsTheaboveprovisionhasimposedastatutoryliabilityonbothsonsanddaughterstomaintaintheirfatherormotherwhoisunabletomaintainhimselforherself.Section488oftheoldcodedidnotcontainanysuchprovisionaimedatpreventionofvagrancyanddestitutionofparentswhodonothavemeanstomaintainthemselves(VijayaMonoharArbatv.KashiraoRajaramSawai).254Iftherearetwoormoresons,theparentsmayseekremedyagainstanyoneormoreofthesons.Theliabilitytomaintainthefatherisnotdependantonfailureorotherwiseofthefathertofulfilhisnormalobligationofmaintainingchildrenduringchildhood(PandurangDabhadeBaburaoDabhade).255Theadoptivefatherisalsoentitledtomaintenance.
Evenamarrieddaughterisliabletomaintainherparents.Butinthiscontext,PaladugulaVijayalakshmiv.NomulaRamanadham256raisesaninterestingquestion.Inthiscase,theparents,aged60and50,hadtheirownpropertyandwererunningasmallgrocerystore.Theyhadnotgivenanyshareofthepropertytotheirdaughtertowhichshewasentitledto.Buttheson,uponattainingmajoritywasgivenashare.Theparentsalsodidnotperformthemarriageceremonyoftheirdaughterasshehadmarriedagainsttheirwishes.Thedaughter,sincethen,waslivingwiththehusband.TheparentsclaimedmaintenancefromthedaughterandwereawardedRs400permonth.Thehighcourtsentthematterbackforretrialasitwasheldthattheprocedureaslaiddownunder(p.180) Section126wasnotscrupulouslyfollowedbythelowercourt.Thehighcourt
![Page 67: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 67 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
directedthetrialcourttoconsiderallrelevantfactorsbeforeupholdingtheparentsclaimformaintenancefromthedaughter.
ifanypersonhavingsufficientmeansneglectsorrefusestomaintain,hisfatherormother,unabletomaintainhimselforherself,aMagistrateofthefirstclassmay,uponproofofsuchneglectorrefusal,ordersuchpersontomakeamonthlyallowanceforthemaintenanceofsuchfatherormother,atsuchmonthlyrateassuchMagistratethinksfitandtopaythesametosuchpersonastheMagistratemayfromtimetotimedirect.
InAkhamIbobiSinghv.AkhamBiradhwajaSingh,257thefatheraged74yearsandthemotheraged71yearswereclaimingmaintenancefromtheirson.Thefamilycourtrejectedtheirclaim.Inappeal,theGauhatiHighCourtupheldtheirclaimandheldthatitisnotrequiredtostrictlyprovetheirinabilitytomaintainthemselvesandcommentedthatwhilerejectingtheclaimoftheparents,thefamilycourtslostsightofSection14oftheFamilyCourtsAct,wherethecourthaswidepowerstoreceiveevidencewhichisnotadmissibleinotherproceedings.TheIndiansocietycastsadutyonthechildrenofapersontomaintaintheirparentsiftheyarenotinapositiontomaintainthemselves.Itistheirdutytolookaftertheirparentswhentheybecomeoldandinfirm.Thecourtlamentedoverthefactthattherewasalongdrawnlegalbattlebetweenparentsandsonsforamatterwhichis,unfortunately,amoralobligation.TheyhavebeenfightingfromthefamilycourtuptotheSupremeCourtviathishighcourt,andmighthavespentalotofmoneyforthatpurpose.Thecourtcommentedthatthereisnolawwhichstipulatesthattheparentsmustclaimmaintenancefromallsonsanddaughtersandtheyshouldbejointlyimpleadedintheproceedings.Itwillsuffice,ifitisprovedthattheRespondenthasthecapacitytomaintainandtheparentsdonothavethecapacitytomaintainthemselves.
InMakiurRahamanKhanv.MahilaBibi,258itwasheldthatadivorcedMuslimwomanisentitledtomaintenancefromherchildrenunderSection125ofCr.PC.ThedivorcedwifehadfiledproceedingsundertheMuslimWomen’sActforafairandreasonablesettlementagainstherhusband.Whiletheseproceedingswerepending,shealsofiledformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCagainsthersons.ShewasawardedRs250fromeachofhertwosons.Inanappealfiledbythesonsagainstthisorder,thehighcourtheldthatwomen’srightsagainsttheirsonsunderSection125ofCr.PCarenotsubstitutedbytheenactmentofMuslimWomen’sAct.TheprovisionsofMWAareinadditiontoherrightsunderSection125Cr.PCagainstherchildren.
TheSupremeCourt,inKirtikantD.Vadodariav.StateofGujarat,259heldthatevenanadoptivemotherandachildlessstep-mother,isentitledtoclaimmaintenanceallowancesagainstheradoptedsonorherstep-son,ifsheisawidoworherhusband,ifliving,isincapableofmaintainingher.Thecourtreiteratedthatthewhiledealingwiththeambit
Box2.4Section125(1)(d)ofCr.PC
![Page 68: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 68 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
andscopeofSection125Cr.PC,itmustbeborneinmindthattheprimaryobjectissocialjusticetothosewhoareunabletomaintainthemselves,buthaveamoralclaimforsupport.
TherecentlyenactedMaintenanceofParentsandSeniorCitizensAct,2007,providesanadditionalremedytoelderlymenandwomentoclaimmaintenancefromtheirchildren.TheActgoesastepfurtherandsecurestherightsofchildlessseniorcitizensagainsttheirnextofkinorpersonswhowouldbeentitledtoinherittheirproperty.TheActalsoseekstoprotectthelifeandpropertyofseniorcitizensandparents.Inadditiontomaintenanceandprovision,theActalsoseekstoensurebettermedicalfacilitiesandmandatesthestatetosetupoldagehomesandprovideinstitutionalizedcaretotheelderly.
(p.181) Inordertoprovideforaneasilyaccessibleavenueofaccessingjusticeandtoensureaspeedyremedy,theActprovidesforestablishmentoftribunalsandofficeofMaintenanceOfficerwhowillrepresenttheparentortheseniorcitizenintheseproceedings.Inordertoprotectthisvulnerablesectionfromtheclutchesofunscrupulouslawyers,theActprohibitslegalrepresentation.Inordertoarriveatasettlement,ratherthanengageinlengthylitigation,theActalsoprovidesforconciliationproceedings.Ifthedisputeisnotresolvedatthisstage,itwillproceedbeforethetribunalandwillbedecidedwithinamaximumperiodofninetydays.ThemaximumamountwhichcanbeawardedunderthisActislimitedtoRs10,000permonth.
TheadditionalsafeguardthatthenewActprovidesispunishmenttothechildrenandrelativeswhoabandontheirparentsorseniorcitizensinordertoavoidvagrancyanddestitution.Also,ifthereisanytransferofpropertywhichhasbeencarriedoutwithmalafideintention,orbyresortingtofraud,orundueinfluence,itcanbesetaside.
TheActempowerssocialorganizationstointerveneonbehalfoftheelderlyandalsoempowersthemtoinitiateproceedings,suomoto.
Whilethisisatimelymeasureenactedwiththerightintentions,theworkingofthisActatthegroundlevelisyettobeobserved.Hopefully,itwillnotposemorehurdlesonthepathoftheelderlywhiletheyseekremedialandprotectivereliefagainstneglectanddestitution.
Whileitisapositiveendeavour,itmaytakesometimetillalltheinfrastructuralandinstitutionalsupportisdeveloped.Inthemeantime,theparentscanstilltakerecourseundertheprevailingprovisionunderSection125ofCr.PC.Sincetheproceduresareallsetinplaceandthemagistratesarewellversedwiththeprovisionsandtheprovisionsarealsosummaryinnature,itwouldprovideaviableremedytoadestituteparent.TwoadditionalbenefitsoffilingunderSection125ofCr.PCwouldbethatnoceilingisstipulatedunderitandtheatmosphereofacriminalcourtmightexertgreaterpressureontheoppositesidetocomplywiththeorderduetothefearofimprisonment,whichcanbeavailedofinexecutionproceedings.
![Page 69: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 69 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
ProceduralAspects
Ascanbeobservedfromtheexhaustivelistofsubstantiveissuesdiscussedabove,thetaskofclaimingmaintenancecaneasilybecomparedtoanordealbyfireforthewomeninvolved.Everylegalployisinvokedinordertohumiliatewomenanddefeattheirclaimstomaintenance.Evenifthesehurdlesofsubstantivelawarecrossed,womenarestilllefttodealwithcomplexand,attimes,absurdproceduralaspects,someofwhicharebrieflydiscussedinthissection.
JurisdictionJurisdictionbecomesanimportantissuewhileinitiatingmatrimonialproceedingsorwhileclaimingmaintenance.Forwomen,theplaceofmarriage,thematrimonialresidence,andhernatalhome,couldbesituatedatdifferentplaces.Inaddition,afterseparation,shemaybeconstrainedtosetupresidenceatyetanotherplace,eithertoseekemploymentortosecureschooladmissionsforherchildren.Keepinginviewthedisplacementwhichmostwomenarecompelledtogothroughbyvirtueofmarriagepatternswhicharepatrilocal,thelawgiveswomenwidejurisdictionwhileinitiatingmatrimonialandmaintenanceproceedings.
Initiallythejurisdictionundermostmatrimonialstatuteswasconfinedtotheplaceofmarriageandtheplacewherethecouplelastresidedtogether,ortheplacewheretherespondentresides.Thiscausedagreatdealofhardshiptowomenwhousuallyreturntotheirnative(p.182) placeafterthemarriagebreaksup.Inviewofthis,theprovisionofjurisdictionundertheHinduMarriageActandtheSpecialMarriageActwaswidenedin2003260toincludetheplacewherethewomanresidesafterthebreakupofhermarriage.Socurrently,thewomancaninitiateproceedingsattheplaceofherpost-separationresidence.Similarly,proceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PCcanbefiledattheplacewherethewomanlastresidedwithherhusbandorwheresheispresentlyresiding(SyedKhajaMohiuddinv.StateofAP).261
Attimestherearemultipleproceedings.ThewifemayhavefiledformaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCattheplaceofherresidenceand,inthemeantime,thehusbandmayhavefiledfordivorceattheplaceofhisresidence.Insuchcases,uponapetitionfortransferoftheproceedingsfiledbythehusband,thecourtswouldbeinclinedtotransferthehusband’spetitiontoacourtwhichwouldbemoreconvenientforthewifetolitigate.
Thelawiswellsettledonthisaspect.Theapexcourthasrepeatedlyheldthatthematrimonialdisputeshavetobedealtwithbycourtswhichareeasilyaccessibletowomen(VinayPandeyv.RoshanKumarandRinkuGoelv.RajeshGoel).262Thefactthatwomen’slackofexposuretotheoutsideworld,theunduehardshipcausedtothemwhiletravellingalonetoadistantplacetodefendthelitigation,theconcernfortheirsafety,thecostoftravel,thefactthattheremaybeyoungchildrenwhoneedconstantcare,ortheelderchildrenwhosestudiesmaybedisruptedwhilethemothertravelstodefendthecourtcase,thefactthatsheisemployedattheplaceofherresidence,etc.,arefactorswhichthecourtshaveconsideredwhiletransferringthehusband’spetitiontotheplacewherethewomanisresiding.
![Page 70: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 70 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InRachanaKanodiav.AnukKanodia,263thewifewasresidinginVaranasi,whichwasthepermanentplaceofresidenceofherparents.TheSupremeCourttransferredthepetitionfordivorcefiledbyherhusbandinthedistrictcourtatThaneinMaharashtratothedistrictcourtVaranasionthegroundthatgreathardshipwillbecausedtohertotravelallthewaytoThane.InChayanaDasv.TarunKumarDas,264thewifewasresidinginCoochBihar.ThehusbandhadfiledapetitionfordivorceinTinsukiya.TheSupremeCourtheldthatsincethedistancebetweenCoochBiharandTinsukiyaisabout830kmandinvolves20hoursoftravelandcostsRs300to400,itisnotpossibleforthewifetoundertaketravelallbyherselftodefendthepetition.
InNeelamBhatiav.SatbirSinghBhatia,265thewifefiledapetitiontotransferproceedingsfromKorbatothefamilycourtatKolkataonthegroundthatshelacksfinancialmeanstotravel,shehadnosourceofincome,andshehadaminordaughteroffiveyears.ThehusbandresistedtheTransferPetitionbutassuredtoco-operateandsettlethecasewithoutdraggingontheproceedings.Hence,theTransferPetitionwasdismissed.InSamitaBhattacharjeev.KulashekarBhattacharjee,266thewifewasresidingwithherparentsatHowrah,WestBengal,alongwithherminorchild.ThehusbandhadfiledapetitionfordivorceinthefamilycourtatAgartala,WestTripura.TheSupremeCourt(p.183) transferredthecasetothecourtofdistrictjudgeatHowrah,WestBengal.
Whentheplaceofresidenceofthewifeandtheplacewherethehusbandhadinitiatedproceedings,botharewithinthedirectionofahighcourt,thehighcourthasalsoissuedsimilardirectionsfortransfer.InKirtiv.VikasBhagiratRaoYeskade,267theBombayHighCourtupheldthewife’spleathatshewasdependentonheragedparentsandshehadnoindependentsourceofincome,andthatitwasnotpossibleforherparentstocometoNagpurtoattendthehearing.Herplaceofresidencewasabout200kmawayfromNagpur.Thecourtupheldhersubmissionthatthejourneywillcauseconsiderablehardshiptoher.ThecourtalsoupheldherpleathatsheapprehendsdangertoherwhenshecomestoattendproceedingsinNagpur.ThecourtcommentedthattheconvenienceofthewifeistobepreferredoverconvenienceofthehusbandanditoughttobethehusbandwhoshouldtravelfromNagpurtoChandrapur,ratherthanthewifefromBallarsha(Chandrapur)toNagpur.InP.Himabinduv.P.Jayasimharaja,268theAndhraPradeshHighCourtheldthattheprimaryconcernforthecourtshouldbetheconvenienceofthewife.SinceshehadnomaleassistancetotraveltoChittoor,thetransferpetitionfiledbyherwasallowed.InShakuntalav.PankajChourasiya(Dr),269theMadhyaPradeshHighCourt,whiletransferringtheproceedingsfromacourtinIndoretothefamilycourtatPannawherethewifewasresiding,commentedthattherewasnothingonrecordtoshowthattherewasdangertothelifeofthehusbandifhetravelstoPannatoattendthecourtproceedings.ThewifewasemployedinPannaandwasalsolookingafterhertwo-year-oldchildthere.
TheOrissaHighCourtinSujataMohantyv.RudraCharanMohanty,270rathercuriouslyhasgivenajudgmentwhichiscontrarytothisposition.Rejectingthewife’spetition,thecourtheldthatthefactthatthewifefeelsunsafetotravelaloneisnotasufficientground
![Page 71: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 71 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
fortransferofthecase.
Thehighcourt’spoweroftransferislimited.Itcanonlytransfercasesfromacourtunderitsjurisdictiontoanothercourtoverwhichithasjurisdiction.InJencyElizebathPeterv.BijuThomas,271itwasheldthatthehighcourtofKeralalacksjurisdictiontotransferthecasefiledbythehusband,whichwaspendingbeforethefamilycourt,Ernakulam,tothefamilycourtatChennaiwherethewifewasresiding.But,consideringthefactthatthewifewasresidingwithhermotherinChennaiandhadathree-year-oldchild,thehighcourtdirectedthefamilycourtatErnakulamtoconsidertherequestmadebythewifeforexaminingherthroughacourtcommissioneratChennai.
TravellingExpensesForwomen,travellingexpensesalsobecomeanimportantaspectoflitigation.Unlesswomenareprovidedadequatetravellingexpenses,theymaynotbeinapositiontodefendthecasefiledbytheirhusbandsagainstthem.
AnimportantcaserelatingtotheissueoftravellingexpensesisAnitaLaxmiNarayanSinghv.LaxmiNarainSingh.272ThefamilycourtatBombayhadawardedaverylowamounttowardstravel,lodging,andotherexpenses,forthewifewhowasstayinginGhaziabad.Sincethismadeitimpossibleforthewifetotraveltodefendherself(p.184)duringlitigation,thehusbandwasabletosecureanexpartedecreeofdivorce.Whilesettingasidetheexpartedecreeofdivorce,theSupremeCourtpassedstricturesagainstthefamilycourtforitscallousnessinawardingsuchalowamountastravelexpenses.TheSupremeCourtalsotransferredtheproceedingsfromthefamilycourt,Bombay,tothedistrictcourt,Ghaziabad,fordisposalinaccordancewithlaw.Therespondent-husbandwasaskedtopaythecostoftheproceedingswhichwasquantifiedatRs5,000.
Ifthehusbandiswillingtopaythetravelcostsofthewoman,thecourtsmaynotpassanordertotransfertheproceedingsataplacewhichisconvenienttothewife.InTeenaChhabrav.ManishChhabra,273theSupremeCourtacceptedthehusband’soffertobeartheexpensesforthetravel,boarding,andlodging,ofthewifeanddismissedhertransferpetitionwhichwasfiledonthegroundthatshehadnosourceofincometotravel.Similarly,inKanagalakshmiv.A.Venkatesan,274theSupremeCourtacceptedthepleaofthehusbandthathewouldbeartheexpensesnotonlyforthewifebutalsohercompanionfortheirtravel,andstayattheplacewherethecasewaspendingand,accordingly,dismissedhertransferpetition.ThesameprinciplewasalsofollowedinM.Sivagamiv.R.Raja.275Whiledisallowingthetransferpetitionbasedonmonetarygrounds,theSupremeCourtdirectedthehusbandtopaythewife’slitigationcostsandalsohertravelcostsandexpensesalongwiththoseofherwitnesses.
DelayinFilingApplicationWhileawomanisexpectedtofileformaintenancewithinareasonableperiodafterthedesertion,thecourtswillnotrejectherapplicationmerelyonthegroundthattherewasdelayinfilinganapplicationformaintenance.Manytimes,womenwhoaredeserteddelayfilingformaintenanceinthehopethattheremaybeapossibilityofreconciliationand
![Page 72: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 72 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
approachingthecourtsformaintenancemightenragetheirhusbandsandmartheirchancesofreconciliation.Thelegalentitlementforclaimingmaintenancearisesfromthedateoffilingtheapplicationandnotfromthedateofdesertion.Hence,thewomanwouldloseoutifaclaimformaintenanceisnotfiledsoonafterthedesertion.
Sincethehusbandislegallyobligatedtopaymaintenancetohiswife,non-paymentofmaintenanceisacontinuingoraninchoateoffence,andeverymonthwhenthehusbandfailsinhisobligationtomaintainthewife,anewrightiscreated.ItisinthiscontextthatinManglaDeviv.Baluram,276itwasheldthatthoughtheapplicationformaintenanceshouldbefiledwithinareasonabletime,nolimitationcanbeprescribedforthesame.Thecourtcommentedthatifthereisasatisfactoryexplanationforthedelay,theapplicationcannotberejectedmerelyonthegroundofdelay.Thewomanpleadedthatsinceherfatherwasinservicehehadmaintainedher,butafterhisretirementfromservicehewasnotinapositiontomaintainherand,henceshehadfiledanapplicationformaintenance.Itwasheldthatthedelaywassatisfactorilyexplained.
AsimilarlineofreasoningwasalsoadoptedinNirmalabaiv.Dr.Omprakash.277TheApplicantNo.1wasahousewifeignorantaboutthetechnicalitiesofthelaw,andtheApplicantNo.2wasaminorchild.Thecourtheldthatsufficientexplanationhadbeengivenforthedelay.StatingthattherevisioncourtcannottakeatechnicalviewofmatterignoringthefactthatSection125ofCr.PCisabenevolentprovision.InShobhav.KrushnakantPandya,278(p.185) therewasadelayoftwenty-fiveyearsinfilingtheapplicationformaintenance.Sinceherparentsweresupportingherandsinceshehopedforreconciliation,thewifehadnotapproachedthecourtsformaintenance.Acceptingthisexplanation,shewasawardedRs3000permonthasmaintenanceandsetasidetheorderofthefamilycourt,whchhadrejectedherapplication.InThakurVyasnarayanSinghv.Hemlata,279thewifewaslivingwithhermaternaluncleafterthedeathofherfather.Inviewofthis,itwasheldthattheinordinatedelayinfilingthepetitionhasbeencorrectlyexplained.Thecourtalsoobservedthatthewifehadnosourceofincomeandwasincapableofmaintainingherself.
Eveniftheapplicationwasdismissedonanearlieroccasion,asubsequentapplicationonanothergroundisnotbarredandthepetitionwillbeentitledtomaintenanceonthefreshground,ifshesucceedsinprovingthisground(PuliyullaChalilNarayanaKurupv.ThayyullaParabhathValsala).280
InterimMaintenanceThepurposeofawardinginterimmaintenanceandlitigationexpensesistoprovidetheclaimantbasicminimumfinancialsupportinordertosurviveandcarryonwiththelitigationprocess.Attimes,incontestedcases,thelitigationmaygoonforseveralyearsandthepartyclaimingmaintenancewillbesubjectedtogreathardshipsifinterimmaintenanceisnotawarded.Thecourtsareextremelycautiousifchildrenareinvolved,asintheinterveningperiodtheireducationandhealthmaysufferandthedamagewouldbeirreparablebythetimethecourtsdeliverthefinalverdictontheissue.
Anapplicationforinterimmaintenance(maintenancependentelite)canbefiledalongwith
![Page 73: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 73 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
apetitionforamatrimonialrelieforafteracopyofthepetitionfiledbythehusbandformatrimonialreliefisservedonthewoman.ItcanalsobefiledalongwithanapplicationunderSection18ofHAMA,Section125ofCr.PC,orundertheDomesticViolenceAct.Itcanalsobefiledsubsequently,butbeforethetrialofthemainpetitioncommences.Theprovisionofinterimreliefisbasedonanurgencyandmustbedecidedexpeditiouslybeforetakingupothercontestedissues(SushilaVireshChaddvav.VireshNagshiChhadva).281
Evenwhenthestatutedoesnotexplicitlyprovideforit,thepowertoawardinterimmaintenancehasbeenreadintothepowerofthecourttodojustice.
InSavitriv.GovindSingh,282theSupremeCourtupheldthepowertoawardinterimmaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PCasfollows:‘Whileinterpretingtheprovision,ithadtobedoneinsuchamannersoasnottodefeattheobjectiveofthelegislation.Intheabsenceofanyexpressprohibition,theprovisionmustbeinterpretedastopaysomereasonablesumbywayofmaintenancetotheapplicantpendingfinaldisposaloftheapplication.ApplicationsunderSection125ofCr.PCtakeseveralmonthsbeforefinaldisposal.Inordertoenjoythefruitsoftheproceedings,theapplicanthastobealiveuntilthedateofthefinalorder.Inalargenumberofcases,thesameispossibleonlyifanorderforinterimpaymentofmaintenanceismade.Everycourt,therefore,mustbedeemedtopossess,bynecessaryintendment,all(p.186) suchpowersasarenecessarytomakeitsordereffective.’
InP.SrinivasaRaov.P.Indira,283theAndhraPradeshHighCourtexplainedtheinherentpowertograntinterimmaintenanceunderSection18ofHAMAasfollows:‘IndependentoftheinherentpowerofthecourtunderSection151ofCPC,evenundertheprovisionsoftheActitself,bynecessaryimplication,powerhasbeenconferredonthecourttograntinterimmaintenancetothewifeandminorchildrenwherecircumstancessowarrantandjustify,todojusticeonaprimafaciesatisfactionofthecaseonmerits.Insuchcases,thecourtcannotdeclinetograntinterimmaintenancependentelitetillthefinaladjudicationofthecontroversyonmerits.TheinherentpowersunderSection151ofCPCandthepowersconferredunderotherprovisionsofCPCareintendedtodocompletejusticebetweentheparties.Aconjointreadingoftheseprovisionsclearlydisclosesthattheyempowerthecourtstopassappropriateinterimordersasmayappeartothecourtsjustandconvenient,topreventjusticebeingdefeated.Theobjectoftheprovisionsistopreservetherightsofthepartiesatthesameplacetilltheircauseisadjudicated.Asamatterofprinciple,ifitisheldthatnointerimmaintenancecanbeawardedinmaintenanceproceedings,itcauseshardshiptothepartiesandinsomecasesthereisthepossibilitythatthemainreliefmayalsobecomeinfructuous,ifthepartyisnotabletomaintainherselfpendingproceedings.’
Ifthegroundforinterimmaintenanceismadeout,thecourtcannotimposeanyconditiononthespouseclaimingsuchmaintenance.Eveninapetitionfordivorcefiledbythehusbandonthegroundofwife’sadultery,thecourtcannotdismissthewife’sapplicationforinterimmaintenance.InDwarkadasGurmukhidasv.Bhanuben,284itwasheldthatitistherightofthewife,whoisunabletosupportherselffortheinterimperiod,toget
![Page 74: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 74 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
maintenanceandthesameshouldbemadeavailabletoherwithoutanyreferencetoherconduct.InSarojDeviv.AshokPuri,285anorderimposingtheconditionthatthewifewouldundertaketorefundthealimony,iftheallegationsregardingherleadinganimmorallifewereproved,wasillegal.InBijalParagDavev.ParagLabhashankarDave,286itwasheldthatrefusaltoawardinterimmaintenancetothewifeonthegroundofmisconductisnotproper.InNeelamMalholtrav.RajinderMalhotra,287itwasheldthatrefusaltoawardinterimmaintenancebasedonhusband’sallegationsofgrossmisbehaviourandinfidelitywasimproperandthetrialcourtcouldnotgointotheallegationswhichwouldprejudicethemainissue.InJagirSinghv.JasbirKaur,288itwasheldthatdenialofinterimmaintenancejustonthebasisofsuchanallegationwouldnotbejustifieduntilandunlesstheallegationissubstantiatedbycogentevidence.
Evenwhenthevalidityofmarriageisdisputed,thecourtshavethepowertograntinterimmaintenance.Similarly,whenpaternityisdisputed,thecourtswillnotgointothelengthyquestionofdecidingpaternitywhileawardinginterimmaintenance.
TheDelhiHighCourt,inRajeshChaudharyv.NirmalaChaudhary,(discussedearlier)heldthatanestrangedwifeclaimingmaintenanceforherselfandherchildcannotbedeniedinterimmaintenancewhileawaitingtheresultsofcomplexDNAtestsfordeterminingtheissueofallegedillegitimacy.Sustenanceoftheminorchildanditsmother,educational,andother(p.187) householdexpensesdonotandcannotawaitthedecisionofthecourtonsuchacomplexissue.Thecourtdirectedthatinterimmaintenanceshouldbeorderedexpeditiously,iffoundpayable.
InBobbyPaulosev.RoniaMathew,289itwasheldthatwhiledecidingtheapplicationforinterimmaintenance,whichisasummaryproceeding,thecourtcannot,inanymanner,prejudicethewife’srights.TheKeralaHighCourtcommentedthatsincethematterwasbeingindefinitelyadjournedduetohusband’sinconveniencetoattendcourtproceedings,thefamilycourtadoptedarealisticapproachingrantinginterimmaintenancetothewife.
InSampaSahav.AmareshSaha,290itwasheldthatanorderrejectingtheprayerofinterimmaintenance,withoutassigninganyreasonandwithoutrecordinganysatisfactoryexplanationastowhyinterimmaintenancewasrefused,suffersfromseriousillegality.
Atthestageofawardinginterimmaintenancethecourtswillnotpermitthepartiestogointolengthylegalsubmissionsortocrossexamineeachother.Theapplicationforinterimmaintenancecanbedecidedbyaffidavitsoftheparties.
InRajeshBurmannv.MitulChatterjee(Burman),291theSupremeCourtupheldthegrantofmedicalexpensestothewifebywayofinterimrelief,andheldthattherewasnoinfirmityinthedecisionorinthereasoningwhileawardinginterimmaintenancetothewife.
Whileprotectingtherightsofwomen,children,andparentsforinterimmaintenance,thecourtshavealsoissuedacautionthatfabulousamountscannotbeawardedatthead-
![Page 75: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 75 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
interimstageinexparteorderswithoutsubstantiveevidenceinsupportoftheclaimregardingtheincomeofthehusband(SaibalDeyv.ChaitaliDey).292
ThecourtsareempoweredtograntinterimmaintenanceundermatrimonialproceedingsevenifthewifeandchildrenhavebeenawardedmaintenanceinproceedingsunderSection125ofCr.PC.InAshokSinghPalv.Manjulata,293whileupholdingtherightofthewifetomaintenanceunderSection24ofHMAandunderSection125ofCr.PC,itwasheldthattheremediesunderbothsectionsareindependentofeachother.ThereisnorulethattheamountofmaintenancegrantedunderSection125ofCr.PCbeadjustedtowardstheamountgrantedunderHMA,orviceversa.ButacontraryviewhasbeenexpressedbytheBombayHighCourtinSanjayv.Swati294whichsetasidetheorderofthefamilycourtonthegroundthatitwaspassedwithouttakingintoconsiderationthehusband’sexistingliabilitytopaymaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PC.
Consideringtheurgencyofproceedingsforinterimmaintenance,thecourtsareboundtogiveshortdatestoavoiddelays.InSoniaKhuranav.State,295itwasheldthatthoughMagistratesareburdenedwithheavyworkandnormallyitisdifficultforthemtogiveshortdates,itwouldnotjustifygivingadateaftertenmonths.Thecourtsmustkeepinviewthenatureofproceedingsandwhenthereisurgency,shortdatesmustbegiven.Inthiscase,thepetitionersaredestitute,havingnomeansoflivelihood.TheyhadfiledanapplicationunderSection125ofCr.PCforinterimmaintenancetogetimmediatesupport.Suchapplicationsmustbedecidedwithoutanydelay.Thecourtcommentedthatissuingnoticeonpreliminary(p.188) hearingforadateaftertenmonthsisatravestyofjustice.
Whileawardinginterimmaintenance,thecourtsarealsoempoweredtoorderlitigationcoststotheclaimanttoenablehertogetadequatelegalassistance.WhileinRameshBabuv.Usha,296thehusbandchallengedRs2,500,awardedtothewifeaslitigationcost,onthegroundthatshecanavailoffreelegalaid.But,theMadrasHighCourtheldthattheclaimofadeservingpersonforinterimmaintenanceandlitigationexpensescannotberejectedonthegroundofavailabilityoffreelegalaid.Butatthesametime,inPritibenAcharyav.StateofGujarat,297theGujaratHighCourthasheldthatitisthedutyofthejudgesandadvocatestobringtothenoticeoflitigantstheirrighttofreelegalaid.
InJayaSanjivMehtav.SanjivBaldevMehta,thefamilycourt,whileawardinginterimmaintenancefromthedateoftheorder,assignednoreasonsastowhytheusualpracticeofawardingmaintenancefromthedateofapplicationwasnotfollowed.Thehighcourtsetasidethisorderandawardedmaintenancetothewifefromthedateoffilingtheapplicationforinterimmaintenance.Thecourtalsocommentedthatthesupertechnicalapproachadoptedbythefamilycourtofdemandingthatthewifeshouldgethertrainticketendorsedbytheconcernedsuperintendentorstationmasterisnotproper.OncethewifesatisfiesthecourtthatshehastravelledfromAgratoMumbaionavalidticketandtheticketbearsnameanddateofthetrain,sheisentitledtoclaimtravelallowance.
ProofofIncomeTheentirediscussiononmaintenancehingesonjustonefactor—whethertheapplicanthasbeenabletosecureafavourableorderofmaintenance,andtheamountwhichis
![Page 76: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 76 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
awarded.Thereisnosetformulaforfixingtheamountofmaintenance.Withinastratifiedsociety,theamountwoulddependuponthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.Thecourtscannotbeexpectedtoadoptamechanicalapproachwhileinterpretingaprovisionoflawwhichisbasedonprinciplesofsocialjustice(PradeepKumarKapoorv.ShailjaKapoor),298andmuchwoulddependuponhumanitarianconcerns.Therelevantfactorsforconsiderationwouldbe:
1.Thestatusoftheparties;2.Theneedsoftheclaimants;3.Theincome,assets,andlifestyleofthehusband;4.Hisotherfinancialobligations;5.Thewife’sincomeandassets.
Theearliernotionofadoleforbaresurvivalhasgivenwaytothenotionofphysicalandemotionalwell-beingoftheclaimant.299Themaintenancewhichisawardedshouldsufficethewomantotakecareofherbasicneedssuchasfood,clothing,shelter,medicalexpenses,aswellastheexpensesofraisingherchildren,includingtheireducationalexpenses.
Fromtheearliernotionofawardingone-fifthoftheincome,thethumbrulenowistoawardone-thirdofthehusband’sincomeasmaintenancetothewife(Dineshv.Usha).300But,whilethisisthegeneralprinciple,ineachcasethe(p.189) courtisdutyboundtoenquireintotheactualearningsorincomeoftherespondent.Hence,theclaimantisexpectedtosubmitproofofincome,basedonwhichthecourtwilldeterminetheamountofmaintenance.
Itisratherironicthatmostwomenarenotabletoprovidethenecessaryproofasrequiredbyacourtoflaw.Womenlackbasicknowledgeregardingtheirhusbands’employment,income,assets,investments,bankaccounts,movableandimmovableproperty,agriculturalincome,orhusbands’shareintheHUFproperty.Duringthesubsistenceofmarriage,mostwomendonothaveeitheraccessoraninterestinthefinancialarrangementsoftheirhusbandsorthejointfamily.Theydon’thaveaccesstothedocumentssuchassalaryslips,bankpassbooks,receiptsoffixeddeposits,sharecertificates,propertycards,tenancyagreements,incometaxreturns,etc.Inaneconomicorderwhichthrivesonunaccountedmoney,provingactualincomeorassetsisadauntingtask,whichisbeyondmostdiligentandprudentwomen.Ontheotherhand,husbandspreferprotractedandexpensivelitigationratherthanconcedingtheclaimofmaintenance.Attimes,itbecomesamatternotjustoffinancialliabilitybutalsoofpersonalego.Defeatingtheclaimofmaintenance,throughadversarialproceedingsbecomesaretaliatorymeasuretosettlescoreswiththewife,whohasinitiatedlegalproceedingsagainstthem.Duetotheseconstraints,evenwhenwomendosucceedinsecuringanorderofmaintenance,theamountsawardedaremeagreandfarbelowtheexpectationsoftheclaimants.
Thechallengingtaskbeforethecourtistofindabalancebetweentheinflatedclaimsofwomenandthedeflateddisclosuresofincomebyhusbands.Inordertocircumventthis
![Page 77: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 77 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
lacunaeregardingacceptablelegalproof,thecourtshaveevolvedcertainlegalmaximsfordeterminingtheamountofmaintenancewhichwouldbeequitable,just,andfairtothepartiesconcerned.Since,itisnotalwayspossibletoapplytheruleofbestevidenceinmaintenanceproceedings,thecourtswillrelyuponprobabilitieswhichwouldenlargethescopeofarrivingatreasonableinferences(PendiyalaSureshKumarRamaraov.SompallyArunbindu).301
Onebasiccriterionisthatofanable-bodiedmancapableofearningalivelihood.302Thecourtswillinvokethislegalpremiseifthehusbanddeclinestodisclosehisincome.Intheabsenceofevidence,thewife’ssubmissionswillbetakenintoconsiderationfordeterminingtheamount.
InAliHossainv.BabyFarida,303thewifewasawardedRs300permonthasmaintenanceforherselfandRs200permonthforeachofthetwochildren.Thehusbandworkedasarickshawpullerandcasuallabourer.Hechallengedtheorderonthegroundthattheamountwasexcessiveandpassedwithoutarealisticassessmentofhisincome.Thehighcourtheld:‘Thehusbandisanablebodied,young,healthyman,andadmitsthathehasaregularjobasarickshawpullerandcasuallabourer,buthedidnotcaretodiscloseevenhisaveragedailyincome.Thisomissiontodisclosehisincomeissufficienttowarrantaninferencethathehasthecapabilityofearningsufficientincome.’
InHaseenav.AbdulJaleel,304theKeralaHighCourtheldthatthesalarydrawnbythehusbandisafactwithinhisknowledge.Thewifecannotbefaultedfornotprovingit.Intheabsenceofevidencefromthehusband,theevidenceadducedbythewifeisaccepted.ThewifewasawardedRs2,50,000asreasonableandfairprovision,andmaintenance.
(p.190) InTabassumShaikhv.Sheikh,305thewifepleadedthatduetocrueltyandaccusationsofunchastitymadeagainsther,shewasterrifiedofreturningtohermatrimonialhome.Inherpleadingssheprovideddetailsofthehusband’spropertiesandbusiness.Thehusbanddidnotgivedetailsofhisincome.WhileawardingRs2,500permonthasmaintenancetoheritwasheldthatoncedetailsofpropertiesandbusinesshasspecificallybeenmentionedinthepetition,itwasforthehusbandtodisclosehisincomewhichhefailedtodo.
InJavedv.StateofUttaranchal,306wheretherewasnodocumentaryevidencetoprovethemonthlyincomeofthehusband,itwasheldthatnowadays,anordinarylabourerwhoworksonadailywagebasis,earnsaboutRs150perday.Hence,thecourtinferredthatthehusband’searningwouldbearoundRs4,000permonth.OnthisbasisRs1,500wasawardedasmaintenancetothewife.
InKishanDuttVermav.BabyParul,307thehusband,apracticingadvocate,hadasubstantiallegalpractice.Inaddition,healsoworkedasanoathcommissioner.HistotalincomewasassessedtobearoundRs10,000permonth.Thecourtcommentedthatassumingherequires50percentofthisamountforhimself,itwouldbeappropriateifhepaysthebalance50percenttowardsthemaintenanceofhiswifeandchildren.Theconductofthehusbandduringlitigationwasdeplorable.Hedidnotpaytheamount
![Page 78: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 78 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
whichwasorderedbythetrialcourtandhisdefencewasstruckdown.Inthiscontext,thehighcourtmadethefollowingobservations:‘Theappellantisleastconcernedabouttheorderspassedbyanycourtandthinksthathecangetawaybyfloutingthemwithimpunity.Thisisunfortunate,inviewofthefactthattheappellantisanadvocate.’
Anothercriterionthatisoftenrelieduponisthestandardofliving.Whilethecriterionofanablebodiedmanwouldcometotherescueofwomenofthepoorersections,thestandardoflivingcriterionwillaidthewomenfromthemiddleandaffluentclasses.Thecourtshaveheldthatadivorcedorseparatedwomanisentitledtohavethesamestandardoflivingafterdivorceorseparation,assheenjoyedinhermatrimonialhome.InMeenuChoprav.DeepakChopra,308whileawardingRs20,000permonthasinterimmaintenance,thecourtheldthatifthehusbandiswealthyandisleadinganopulentlife,hiswifealsohastherighttobeapartnerinhisprosperity.Toarriveatthisfigure,thecourt,primafacie,reliedupontheavermentsmadebythewifethatthehusband’sincomeisaroundRs200,000permonth.
Whileapplyingthesamestandardformula,thecourtswilltakeintoconsiderationtheimmovableproperty,andincomefromfamilybusinessandagriculturalpropertyjointlyownedbythehusbandandhisfamilyasHUFproperty,typeofresidentialpremisesormatrimonialhome,membershipstoexclusiveclubs,numberofcars(orothervehicles),andtypesofcarsownedindividuallybythehusbandortheentirefamily,paymentsmadethroughcreditcards,andtheelectricalandelectronicgadgets.Thesewouldbefairlygoodindicatorsofthelifestyleenjoyedbythehusband.
Followingaresomeotherrulesthathavebeenevolvedthroughjudgemadelaws:Incomeofthehusbandfromthejointfamilybusinessshouldbetakenintoaccounttodeterminethestatusofthehusbandandforfixingthequantumofmaintenance(NeelamMalholtrav.RajinderMalhotra).309(p.191) Ifthehusbanddoesnotdisclosetheincomeearnedfromjointfamilybusiness(Dharamichandv.SobhaDevi)310orattemptstoconcealhistrueincome(JasbirKaurSehgalv.DistrictJudge,Dehradun)311adverseinferenceaboutthesamemaybedrawn,basedonthewife’spleadings.Thehusbandcannottakeadvantageofheavydeductionsfromhissalarywhichisvoluntaryinnature(SawinderjitSinghv.KuldipKaur).312
InHarminderKaurv.SukhwinderSingh,313thewifepleadedthatherhusbandownedtwobusinessesandhisincomewasnotlessthanRs12,000permonth.Commentingthatthewifewasentitledtohavethesamestandardoflivingasherhusband,thecourtawardedRs4,800permonthtothewifeandRs2,400permonthtothechild.
InD.N.NiranjanKaniv.N.Rajee,314thewifewaslivingwithherparentsandshehadnoseparateincomeofherown.Shewasalsolookingaftertwominordaughters.Thefinancialandsocialstatusofthefamilieswasnotindisputeandthehusbandwasleadingacomfortablelife.Itwasheldthattomaintainherselfinthesamestandardasherhusband,thewifewouldrequireRs10,000permonth.Inaddition,thetwodaughterswereawardedRs5000permontheach,towardstheirexpenses.InSushilKumarGuptav.ReenaGupta,315thepartnershipbusinessinwhichthehusbandwasinvolvedhada
![Page 79: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 79 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
turnoverofapproximatelyRs2crore.HealsoownedanagencyofluxurycoachesandcarsfromwherehegeneratedanincomeofaroundRs4to5crore.ThewifewasearningRs6,000throughatemporaryjob.ThehighcourtupheldRs20,000permonthawardedtoherasmaintenancebythetrialcourt.
InIndiraSontiv.SuryanarayanaSonti,316thehusbandfailedtoprovideproofofhissalary,income,andexpenditure.ThecourtawardedUS$400permonthasreasonablemaintenance,andheldthatinthecourseofthelitigationhusbandhadadmittedthathisannualsavingswerearoundUS$9000.InRadhikaRungtav.VineetRungta,317thehusbandwaswellqualifiedandgainfullyemployedintheUSA.ThecourtarrivedatapresumptionthathisincomewouldbeUS$70,000perannum.ThecourtheldthateveniftheincomeisinferredatalowerlevelofUS$50,000thewifewouldbeentitledto20percentofthisamount.ConvertedintoIndiancurrencyitwouldamounttoapproximatelyRs5,00,000.ThewifewasearninganominalincomeofRs5000.ItwasheldthatapersonfromhersocialstatuswouldrequireRs20,000permonthformeetingroutineexpenditure.Takingintoconsiderationherownincome,shewasawardedRs15,000permonthasmaintenance.
InMukeshMittalv.SeemaMittal,318thecourtarrivedatapresumptionthatthehusbandwasearningRs30,000bywayofrentfromeightflats.Thehusbanddidnotproducehistaxreturns.Thecourtcommentedthatthisfactordemonstratesthathewasnotwillingtodisclosehistrueincome.Butonthecontrary,heproducedtheincometaxreturnsofhiswifetoprovethatshehadsufficientincome.HealsopleadedthatthewifeisnotentitledtomaintenanceassheisHIVpositive,thereby,imputingadultery.ItwasheldthatthefactthatthewifeandtheminordaughterareHIVpositivecannotbeused(p.192) todenythemmaintenance.Thewifepleadedthatshehadcontactedthediseasethroughbloodtransfusionduringherpregnancy.Shealsosubmittedthattheincometaxreturns,relieduponbyherhusband,werefiledbythehusbandhimselfonherbehalfandisnotareflectionofherownincome.ThehighcourtupheldthemaintenanceofRs6000permonthtothewifeandRs4000permonthtothedaughter.
InSanjayKapoorv.MeenakshiKapoor,319thehusbandapproachedthehighcourtonthegroundthattheamountawardedasmaintenancewasexcessive.ButupholdingtheorderofRs10,000permonthawardedtothewifeandchildtogetherandlitigationexpensesofRs11,000,theDelhiHighCourtcommentedthatthedistrictjudgewasrightindisbelievingthehusbandregardinghisavermentsthathisearningsareonlyaroundRs10,000permonth.ThecourtcommentedthatthehusbandspendsRs5,500permonthonhouserent,heistheownerofaplotofland,hepossessesthreeFDRs,heistheownerofaMarutiZencar,andheusesamobilephone.320Onthisbasis,hisincomewasassessedatRs25,000.
InKiranSejwalv.YeshDevSinghSejwal,321thehusbandwasresidingintheNetherlandsandheinitiateddivorceproceedingsathisplaceofresidence.ThewifeinitiatedcriminalproceedingsunderSections406and498AofIPCagainstthehusband,hisparents,andrelatives.Shealsofiledapetitionforrestitutionofconjugalrightsandclaimedinterimmaintenance.Shepleadedthatthehusbandwasemployedasamanager
![Page 80: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 80 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
inaGermanfirmandwasdrawingmorethanRs1,50,000permonth,andwasalsorunningahotel.HistotalincomewasRs2,50,000permonth.Thehusbanddeniedtheseallegationsandalsodeniedthatshewashislegallyweddedwife.Heallegedthatthewomanandherparentshadtrappedhimandhisfamilyforgreedandsoughtannulmentofmarriage.Consideringallegationsandcounterallegations,thebackgroundofthefamilies,thestatusoftheparties,theperiodtheyhadlivedtogether,etc.,asumofRs20,000permonthwasawardedasinterimmaintenancetothewifeandRs10,000aslitigationexpenses.
Whilesuppressingincometaxreturnsadverseinferencecanbedrawn,thecourtshavealsoheldthatthesearenottrueindicatorsofaperson’sincomeandcannotbethesoleguidefordeterminingthetrueincome.322InBharatHegdev.SarojHegde,323itwasheldthatincaseofself-employedpersonsorpersonsemployedintheunorganizedsector,taxcomplianceisanexceptionandtaxavoidanceisanorm,and,therefore,ineachcasethecourthastocarefullyverifywhethertheincomedisclosedistruthfulandaccurate.Inthisrespect,thefollowingobservationsweremade:
Unfortunately,nobodypayspropertaxestotheGovernment.Selfemployedpersonsseldomdisclosetheirtrueincome.Prudenceandworldlywisdomgainedbyajudge,beforewhomcitizensofallstrataofsocietylitigate,canalwaysbeusedbyajudgetoascertainastowhatisgoingoninsociety.Bynomeanscanthesaidknowledgebeusedwherethelawrequiresafacttobeconclusivelyproved.Butwherethelawrequiresajudgetoformanopinionbasedonahostofprimarydata,ajudgecanformulateanopinionpertainingtothelikelyincomefromthecapitalassetofthehusband.
Thewifepleadedthatherhusbandwasthesonofanex-ChiefMinister,anindustrialist,(p.193) andco-ownerinvariousproperties.Thecourtcommentedthatkeepinginviewthecapitalassetsowned/co-ownedbythehusband,hissocialstatus,andplaceofresidenceitisdifficulttobelievethathedoesnothavetherequisitemeanstoprovidehiswifeamonthlymaintenanceofRs25,000.ThehusbandwasalsodirectedtopayRs25,000ascostoflitigation.
InGauravNagpalv.SumedhaNagpal,324thecourtupheldthegrantofRs25,000,whichwasawardedtothewifeasmaintenance,onthegroundthattheamountwasnotunrealisticorarbitrary.Thecourtcommentedthattherewassubstantialmaterialtodisapprovetheincomedisclosedbyhusbandinhisincometaxreturns.Itwasnotedthatthehusbandhadsustainablemeansandwaslivingaluxuriouslife.Hewasresidinginasprawlinghousewhilethewifewasresidinginmodestflatalongwithherparents.ThehusbandwasspendingaroundRs10,000permonthonhisson’seducationinaprivateschool.Heownedsubstantialimmovableproperties,buthedidnotdisclosethedetailsofhisassetsandincomefromtheHUFpropertyofwhichhewasacoparcener.
Inthecontextofappraisingthetaxreturn,itwasnotedthatSections56and57oftheIndianEvidenceActempowersthecourtstotakejudicialnoteofallmattersofpublichistory,literature,scienceorarts.Hence,whiledeterminingtheincome,courtscantake
![Page 81: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 81 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
intoaccountthesocialandeconomicills,andunethicalmalpracticesprevailinginsociety.Thehighcourtcommentedthatrecognitionoffactswithoutformalproofisamatterofexpediency.Theneedandwisdomtorecognizeandacceptfactsinpublicknowledgeisunquestionable.RelyingonBharatHegde(citedearlier),itwasheldthatthecourtsinIndiaareconsciousofthefactthatthereisatendencyamongpartiesnottodisclosetruly,fully,andcompletely,theirincome.Theamountawardedshouldbesufficienttoenablethewifetoliveinsomewhatthesamedegreeofcomfortaswasavailabletoherinhermatrimonialhome.Butitshouldnotbeexorbitantandsohighthatthehusbandisunabletopayandisexposedtocontemptorothercoerciveproceedings.
S.S.Bindrav.Tarvinder325hasintroducedanotherprincipleofawardingmaintenancewhichisbasedonpercentageofincome.Thecourtorderedthat60percentofpayandallowanceasmaintenancetothewifeandchildren,andthehusbandwasallowedtoretainthebalance40percent.Thecourtdiscardedtheformulathatthewifeshouldberetainedatthesamestandardoflifewhichsheenjoyedatthetimeofherseveranceasbeingunfair.Thiswouldrestricttheprayerformaintenanceinamindlessmannertowhathasbeenmadeyearsearlier.Itwasnotedthatordersshouldbepassedkeepingthepresentinperspective,andbringaboutjusticebetweenparties.Mostoften,thecourtsdonotgrantexactlywhatisprayedfor,butawardanamountwhichismuchless.Bythatveryyardstickthecourtisalsonotprecludedtograntmore,ifcircumstanceswarrantthesame.ThehusbandhadstatedthathewasdrawingasalaryofRs29,000permonth.ButthisstatementdidnotinspireanyconfidencesinceaccordingtohisownadmissionhewasspendingaroundRs45,000permonthonhimself.ThetrialcourtconcludedthatheisearningasumofRs1,30,000permonth.Inordertoenablethewifeandchildrentoliveinthesamestatusinwhichthehusbandwasliving,thetrialcourtawardedRs75,000permonthasmaintenanceandRs1,00,000towardslitigationexpenses.
Whileupholdingawoman’srightforadequatemaintenance,thecourtswilldeclinethe(p.194) woman’sclaimtoalifeofluxury.326Gradually,thecourtsaremovingawayfromtheconceptofaperenniallydependentwifeincapableofearningalivingandhavestartedtakingnoteofthefactthatalargenumberofwomenareholdingresponsiblepositionsinthecorporatesectorandarecapableofearningandmaintainingthemselves.Hence,thewoman’seducationalqualificationsandearningcapacityisalsokeptinviewwhileawardingmaintenance.
DatefromwhichMaintenanceistobeAwardedWhethermaintenanceistobepaidfromthedateoffilingorfromthedateoftheorderisanissuewhichvastlyimpactstheactualamountwhichawomanwillreceivesinceapplicationsareheardseveralyearsaftertheyarefiled.Theearliernormwastoawardmaintenancefromthedateoftheorder,exceptinexceptionalsituations.Insuchacase,thecourtwoulduseitsdiscretionandrecordreasonsfordeviatingfromthenorm.Ifthehusbandisguiltyofcausingundueharassmenttothewife,thecourtswillgrantmaintenancefromthedateofapplication.
Forinstance,inKamalKishorev.StateofUP,327thehusbandhadlevelledchargesofadulteryagainsthiswifewithoutprovingthesameinthecourt.TheAllahabadHighCourt
![Page 82: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 82 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
commentedthatrecklesschargesofacorruptlifeagainstthewifearelevelledwithoutanyhesitationbyhusbands.Suchaconductisincomprehensibleandthispracticeneedstobedeprecated.Ifsuchchargesarelevelledandnotproved,itcannotbesaidthatthecourthasfixedmaintenanceallowancefromthedateofapplicationwithoutgivingappropriatereasons.Todiscouragesuchpractices,thetrialcourtheldthatifthechargeofadulterycouldnotbeproved,thenmaintenancewouldbefixedfromthedateofapplication.Hence,thewifewasawardedmaintenanceofRs350fromthedateofapplication.
InRamNandanSaov.StateofBihar,328thewifewasawardedRs500asmaintenancefromthedateoforder.Inappeal,thesessionscourtdirectedthattheamountbepaidfromthedateofapplication.Thehusbandfiledanappealinthehighcourtcontendingthatthewifeisnotentitledtomaintenanceassheislivinginadulteryand,further,thattheamountofRs500wasexcessive,andthattheorderdirectingpaymentoftheamountfromdateofapplicationwasunjustandagainstthestipulatedprovisionsoflaw.Thecourtrejectedthecontentionsofadulteryandupheldthelowercourt’sorder.However,itheldthatthesessionscourt,inrevision,hadnopowertoordermaintenancefromthedateofapplication.Theissueofawardingmaintenancefromthedateofapplicationordateoforderislefttothediscretionofthemagistrate.
AcontraryviewisheldinNithaRanjanChakrabortyv.KalpanaChakraborty,329wheretherewasadelayofsevenyearsindecidingtheapplication.Themagistrateawardedmaintenancefromthedateoforder,butinappeal,thesessionscourtreverseditandawardedmaintenancefromthedateofapplication.Butthecourtdidnotgiveadetailedreasoningforthesame.Whileupholdingthesessionscourtorder,theCalcuttaHighCourtheldthatwhileitwasnecessaryforthecourtadoptingsuchcoursetogivereasons,theomissiontogivereasonisanactofimproprietyanddoesnotrendertheorderillegal.
InAmeenKhanv.StateofRajasthan,330whereadivorcecaseremainedpendingforaperiodof(p.195) nineyearsandtheminordaughterwassufferingasaresultofthisdelay,thecourtdirectedmaintenancetobegrantedtothewifefromthedateofapplication.
Gradually,takingintoaccountthehardshipscausedtowomenandchildrenduetoinordinatedelaysincourts,thejudicialapproachbegantochangeand,inmostcases,thecourtsstartedawardingmaintenancefromthedateofapplication.Overtime,thishasbecomeanorm,andcourtsbegantoholdthatifmaintenanceisawardedfromthedateoforderreasonsshouldberecordedfordeviatingfromthenorm.
InS.Jayanthiv.S.Jayaraman,331thecourtheldthatalimonyshouldbedecidedattheearliestkeepinginmindtheneedsofthewifeandmaintenanceshouldbegrantedfromthedateofapplicationandnotfromdateoforder,exceptinexceptionalcases.
InDeepav.Nandkishore,332whileawardingmaintenancefromthedateofapplicationinacaseunderSection125ofCr.PC,thehighcourtheldthatsincetheprovisionof
![Page 83: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 83 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
maintenancehasbeenenactedforthebenefitofthedestitutewifeandchildrensoastopreventvagrancy,thecircumstancesdidnotwarrantadeparturefromtheestablishednormofawardingmaintenancefromthedateofapplication.Thehighcourtalsocommentedthatthetrialcourthadnotexercisedanydiscretionandthatthediscretionofthesessionscourtinthematterwasnotsound.
InPopriBaiv.TreethSingh,333acaseunderHMA,theRajasthanHighCourtreversedtheinterimorderofmaintenanceunderSection24oftheAct,whichawardedmaintenancefromthedateoforder,andheldthatthereisnojustificationfornotawardinginterimmaintenancefromthedateofapplication.Thecourtcommentedthatiftheorderofthetrialcourtwasallowedtostand,itwillcauseseriousprejudicetothewife.InFaniBhusanNandav.KshitiSundariNanda,334acaseunderSection18ofHAMA,itwasheldthattheorderofmaintenancewaseffectivefromthedateofapplication,unlesstherewascontrarydirectionofthecourtthatitwastobeawardedfromthedateoforder.
Morerecently,in2008,[email protected],335itwasheldthatmaintenanceoughttobegrantedfromthedateofapplicationanditisnotnecessarytorecordspecialreasons.Similarly,inVinodKumarJollyv.SunitaJolly,336itwasheldthatthenormalrulewhileawardingmaintenanceunderSection18ofHAMAistograntmaintenancefromthedateoffiling.Noreasonshavebeengivenbythetrialcourtastowhydirectionisgiventopaymaintenancefromthedateoforderandnotfromthedateoffilingofthepetition.Thecourtcommentedthatifthenormalruleistobedeviated,therehastobespecialreasonsforadoptingsuchacourse.
Whileseveraljudgmentshaveendorsedthisposition,therearestillinstanceswherethecourtsconsiderthatasanormalrule,maintenanceshouldbeorderedfromthedateoftheorderandonlyinspecialsituationsitcanbeorderedfromthedateofapplicationafterrecordingreasons.Forinstance,inA.Jairamv.A.Suman,337itwasheldthatinterimmaintenancecanbegrantedfromthedateofapplicationonlyifthesameisspecificallypleaded.Inanotherrecentcase,Gayatriv.OmPrakash,338theRajasthanHighCourtheldthatwhilegrantingmaintenancefromthedateofapplication,theMagistrateoughttorecordreasonsforthesame,(p.196) therebyimplyingthatsuchanordercanbepassedonlyifthefactsofthespecificcasemeritit,andifthewifehasnoothermeansofincomeduringthependencyofthecase.InParamveerSinghv.SureshKanwar,339itwasheldthatifmaintenanceisgrantedfromdateofapplicationandnotfromthedateoforder,reasonsaretoberecordedbycourtforthesame.
Aswecanobservefromtheabovediscussion,thejudicialambiguityregardingthisissuecontinues.Hence,itisprudenttokeepthisissueinmindatthetimeofarguments.
Non-ComplianceoftheOrder:DefencetobeStruckDownIntheeventthatthehusbandrefusestocomplywiththeorderofinterimmaintenance,thecourtcanstrikeoutthehusband’sdefence,whenheistherespondent,orbydismissinghispetition,whenheisthepetitioner(GhasiramDasv.ArundhatiDas).340InBaniv.PrakashSingh,341upholdingthetrialcourtorderofstrikingdownthedefence,it
![Page 84: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 84 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
washeldthattherecanbenodoubtthatthedefiantconductofthehusbandmustbedealtwithsternlybydismissinghisapplication,orstrikingoutthedefenceofthedefaulter.
InS.L.Sehgalv.StateofDelhi,342whilequashingthepetitionfiledbythehusband,thecourtcommentedthatthemultipleproceedingsinitiatedbythehusbandamountedtoabuseoftheprocessoflaw.Byfilingonepetitionafteranother,thehusbandhadsuccessfullycircumventedtheorderofthetrialcourtdirectinghimtopaymaintenanceofRs250permonthtohiswife.Itwasheldthatthehusbandwastakingundueadvantageofthesituation.Thecourtcommentedthatanyfurtherindulgencetothepetitionerwouldleadtoseriousmiscarriageofjustice,andorderedthehusbandtodepositthearrearsofmaintenance.
InSantoshSehgalv.MurariLalSehgal,343whilequashingtheappealfiledbythehusband,itwasheldthatthefailuretopaymaintenancetothewife,asawardedbythecourt,willdisentitlethehusbandfromclaiminganyreliefinmatrimonialproceedings.Itwasfurtherheldthattheappealagainstthedivorcedecree,grantedtothehusband,canbeallowedwithoutgivinganyopportunitytothehusbandtodefendhimself,intheeventofhisfailingtopayinterimmaintenanceandlitigationexpensesgrantedtothewifeduringpendencyoftheappeal.
InMahadevanaikav.Shivakumar,344inarevisionpetitionfiledagainsttheorderofmaintenance,thecourtgrantedstayofrecoveryof50percentofthearrearsofmaintenanceuntilthedisposaloftherevisionpetition,butorderedthehusbandtodeposittheother50percentwhichwasnotcoveredbythestay.Butwhenthehusbandfailedtodepositthesaidamount,thepetitionwasdismissedbyimposingexemplarycostsofRs5,000.Thecourtcommentedthatthehusbandusedthejudicialprocessonlyasarusetoavoidpaymentofmaintenance.Thecourtfurthercommentedthatthehusband,whowaseconomicallyinamuchbetterposition,wastakingadvantageofhispositiontoharassanddeprivethewifeandchildrenevenofthemeagresustenancethattheyhadsecuredthroughtheorder.
Theprovisionofstrikingdownthedefenceisavailableonlyincivilproceedingsandnotforproceedingsundercriminalstatutes.TheBombayHighCourt,inVinodv.Chhaya,345(p.197) hasheldthatifthehusbanddefaultsinpaymentofmaintenance,theonlycourseopentothecourtistoissueanarrestwarrantundertheprovisionsofSection125(3)ofCr.PCforlevyingamountdue.
Wife’sClaimwhenHusband’sPetitionisDismissedWhenthepetitionfordivorcefiledbythehusbandiseitherdismissedorwithdrawn,theInterimApplicationandCounterClaimfiledbythewifeformaintenancedoesnotsurvive.AnyorderofInterimMaintenancepassedbythetrialcourtwillalsolapse.TheoptionopenforawifeistofileunderSection125ofCr.PC.AHinduwifeisalsoentitledtofileformaintenanceunderSection18ofHAMA.
BeforetheSupremeCourtrulinginChandDhawanv.JawaharlalDhawan(discussed
![Page 85: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 85 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
later),therewereconflictingviewsonthisissuebetweenvarioushighcourts.TheGujarat,Calcutta,andAllahabadHighCourts,hadheldthattheexpression‘anydecree’underSection25(provisionforpermanentalimonyandmaintenance)oftheHinduMarriageAct,doesnotincludeanorderofdismissal(Harilalv.Lilavati;Minaraniv.Dasarath;VinodChandraSharmav.RajeshPathak).346ButtheBombayHighCourt,inShantaramv.Hirabai347andModilalKalaramjiJainv.LakshmiModilalJain348hadheldthattheterm‘anydecree’usedinSection25oftheActwouldincludeanorderrefusingtograntamatrimonialrelief.
ThispositionwasoverruledbytheapexcourtinChandDhawanv.JawaharlalDhawan.349TheSupremeCourtclarifiedthattheclaimtopermanentalimonyunderSection25ofHMAisbasedontheprinciplethatthereisadisruptionofthemaritalstatus.Sincethecourtisseizedofthematterofdecidingthemaritalstatusoftheparties,italsoacquiresthepowertoinvokeitsancillaryorincidentalpowertograntpermanentmaintenanceoralimony.Thecourtalsoretainsthispowersubsequently,tomodifyitsownorderwhenanapplicationismovedbyeitheroftheparties,inviewofchangedcircumstances.Thus,theentireexerciseiswithinthegamutofamarriagethathasbrokendown.Butifthereisnodivorceoranyotherdecree,thewifeisentitledtoliveseparately,butherclaimformaintenancedoesnotliewithinthescopeofHMA.Thewife’sclaimofmaintenancehastobeagitatedundertheHinduAdoptionsandMaintenanceAct,1956.Subsequently,inVishnuMayekarv.LaxmiMayekar,350theBombayHighCourtfollowedthisrulingandheldthatwhenapetitionfordivorceisdismissed,maintenanceunderSection25ofHMAcannotbegranted.TheremedyforthewifeliesunderSection125ofCr.PCorunderSection18ofHAMA.
Ratherironically,thepositionupheldbytheSupremeCourtcausesmorehurdlesinthepathofwomenclaimingmaintenanceandalsoleadstomultiplicityofproceedings.Thereareinstanceswherethehusbandswithdrawthepetitionfordivorcefiledbythemwhenanorderofinterimmaintenanceispassedinfavouroftheirwives,onlytodefeatthewomen’sclaims.Womenarethenleftwithnootherchoicebuttoinitiatefreshproceedings,eitherunderSection125ofCr.PCorunderSection18ofHAMA,whichcausesconsiderablehardships,monetaryburdenanddelay.
ExecutionProceedingsExecutionofanorderofmaintenanceisnextinpriorityonlytosecuringafavourableorder.(p.198) Withoutstringentandviableenforcementmachinery,theorderobtainedthroughastrenuousordealandprolongedlitigationwillremainasapaperdecreewithoutanyrelevanceorsignificancetowomen’slives.
Whenthepersonagainstwhomamaintenanceorderhasbeenobtaineddefaultsinpaymentordoesnotcomplywiththeorder,theclaimantwillhavetoinitiateyetanotherlegalproceedingtoexecutethedecreeorenforcetheorder.Atthisstage,thecourtbattlestartsalloveragain,totheutterdismayofwomen(orchildren,orparents,asthecasemaybe).Theproceduresforenforcingacivilandacriminalorderofmaintenancearenotidentical.Thereisaslightvariationbetweenthetwo.Theordersobtained,undertheHMAandHAMA,areordersofacivilnature,whiletheorderunderSection125of
![Page 86: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 86 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Cr.PCisofacriminalnature.
Incivilproceedings,theorderofmaintenancecanbeexecutedbyattachingthesalary,orattachmentandsaleofmoveableorimmovableproperty.TheorderunderSection125Cr.PCcanbeenforcedbyanarrestwarrantandimprisonment.Theattachmentofsalarybecomesthemostfeasibleandcertainwayofensuringpaymentofarrearsofmaintenanceforthesalariedclass.Maintenancecanalsobeachargeonproperty.Butthecourtshaveheldthatadecreerestrainingthedefendantfromalienatingthepropertyisnotvalid(P.M.Devassiav.Ancy).351
InRukhsanaKachwalav.SaifuddinKachwala,352thehusbandagreedtopayasumofRs2,00,000asdivorcesettlement,butdefaultedinpayment.Inordertoensureexecutionofthedecree,thecourtheldtheplaintiffasdecreeholdersandheldthatshewasentitledfortheappointmentofareceiverandthesaleofthehusband’sshop.InBinaMajumderv.RanjitMajumder,353thesubsistenceofdivorceproceedingsinstitutedbythehusband,whowasaClassIVGovernmentemployee,wasstayedfornon-complianceoftheorderofinterimmaintenanceandcostsoflitigation.Inexecution,thecourtorderedsalaryattachment.InRajendraPrasadPaul@RajendraPalv.StateofJharkhand,354thecourtissueddirectionstodeductthearrearsofmaintenancefromthehusband’sG.P.F.(GeneralProvidentFund)accountanddepositthesameinthenameofthewifeandchild.
InAbdusSovanv.RokiaBibi,355itwasheldthatthemerefilingofanapplicationforsettingasideanexparteorderofmaintenancecannotbeusedasagroundtograntthestayonexecutionproceeding.
InManiv.Jaykumari,356theMadrasHighCourthasheldthatfuturesalarycanbeattached.Thehusbandhadchallengedtheorderofattachmentonthegroundthatfuturesalarycannotbeattached.ButthehighcourtheldthatunderboththeCivilProcedureCodeaswellastheCriminalProcedureCode,thecourtshavethepowertoattachfuturesalary.Thecourtcrypticallycommentedthatthelawcannotexpectadestitutewomantoapproachthecourteachmonthforexecutionofthemonthlymaintenancewhichisduetoher.
Theliabilityofthehusbandtocomplywiththemaintenanceorderdoesnotceaseuponthedeathofthehusband.Itcanbeexecutedagainstthelegalheirs.TheSupremeCourtinaleadingcase,ArunaBasuMullickv.DorotheaMitra,357heldthattheassetsleftbehindbythehusbandareliabletobeproceededagainstinthehands(p.199) ofhislegalheirsforsatisfactionofthedecreeformaintenance.
InNagammav.Ningamma,358itwasheldthatthereisnorationalityinthecontentionthatadecreeformaintenanceoralimonygetsextinguishedwiththedeathofthehusbandwhenanyotherdecree,eventhoughnotchargedonthehusband’sproperty,doesnotgetsoextinguished.Itisoneofthesettledprinciplesofinterpretationthatthecourtshouldleaninfavourofsustainingadecreeandshouldnotpermitthebenefitunderthedecreetobelost,unlesstherearespecialreasonsforit.Ifthehusbandhasleftbehind
![Page 87: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 87 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
anestateatthetimeofhisdeath,therecanbenojustificationfortheviewthatthedecreeiswipedoutandtheheirswouldsucceedtothepropertywithouttheliabilityofsatisfyingthedecree.Thedecreeindicatesthatmaintenancewaspayableduringthelifetimeofthewidow.Tomakesuchadecreecontingentuponthelifeofthehusbandiscontrarytothetermsandthespiritofthedecree.
InPavitrav.ArunVarma(Decd.)ThroughL.Rs,359thecourtcommentedthatthetendencyofclosingproceedingsabruptly,withoutdueapplicationofjudicialmind,needstobeabandonedandsincereeffortsneedtobemadeforinvokingtherelevantlegalprovisionsinaidofthepoorlitigantswhoareapproachingthecourtsforenforcementsoftheirrights.
Incasetheordercannotbeexecutedbywayofsalaryorpropertyattachment,itisalsopossibletoobtainanorderofimprisonment.Theonlysnaginpressingforcivilimprisonmentisthattheclaimantisexpectedtopayforthecostofthisimprisonment.Thisstipulationrenderstheremedy,toenforcethemaintenanceorderspassedbythecourt,outofreachofpoorwomenwhoarealreadyburdenedwithcomplicatedlitigationtoenforcetheorders.Thisisatravestyofjustice.Inthiscontext,theremedyunderSection125ofCr.PCappearstobemorefeasible,especiallyaftertheceilinghasbeenremovedsincetheimprisonmentunderthisprovisionisgovernedbycriminallawandhencetheapplicantisnotundertheburdenofbearingthecostofimprisonment.Itbecomestheresponsibilityofthestatetobearthisexpense.
ButapartfromexecutionproceedingsprovidedforunderSection18ofHAMAthepetitioncanalsoapproachthecourtincontemptproceedings.InAmitaDevnaniv.BhagwanDevnani,360theBombayHighCourtheldthatnon-paymentofmaintenanceamountsawardedunderSection18ofHAMAamountstoContemptofCourtandhencethepowerofthecourtforexercisingthealternateremedyofimprisonmentundertheContemptsofCourtActtorecovertheamountisnotousted.Thehighcourtcommented:‘Theconductofthehusbandissoreprehensiblethatthesamedeservesimpositionofmaximumpunishmentprovidedbylaw.Therewasnoreasonforthehusbandtodragtheproceedingsforsolongwithoutofferingevenasinglerupeetillnow.Theattitudeofthehusbandwasthatheshallnotpayanyamounttothepetititionerevenifitisinutterdisregardoftheorderofthecourt.’Butwhileimposingthesentence,thecourtexpressedsomeleniencyandvariedtheorderfor60days,withdirectionstothehusbandtoclearthearrearswithinthestipulatedperiod,failingwhichtheorderofcivilimprisonmentofsixmonthswouldbecomeoperational.
Thepowerofthecriminalcourttoarrestinexecutionproceedingsactsasadeterrent(p.200) againstnon-paymentofmaintenance.Butthepoweriscurtailedbythestipulationunder125(3)ofCr.PCwhichlaysdownthatamagistratecanorderimprisonmentofonlyonemonth.InShahadaKhatoonv.AmjadAli,361theSupremeCourtheldthatthelanguageofSection125(3)isquiteclearanditcircumscribesthepowerofthemagistratetoimposeimprisonmentforatermwhichmayextendtoonemonthoruntilthepayment,ifsoonermade.Butforafurtherbreachoftheorder,theclaimantcanapproachtheMagistrateagainforasimilarrelief.Thisrulingwasfollowedby
![Page 88: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 88 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
varioushighcourts—thePunjabandHaryanaHighCourtinAngrejSinghv.StateofPunjab,362theAndhraPradeshHighCourtinAbdulGafaoorv.HameemaKhatoon,363andtheMadrasHighCourtinMahboobBashav.Nannima.364
TheKeralaHighCourt,inAloraSundaranv.MammaliSumathi,365hasgivenadifferentinterpretationtotheprovisionaswellastotheSupremeCourtrulinginShahadaKhatoon(discussedabove).R.BasantJ.oftheKeralaHighCourtcommented:
ThestatutoryprovisionsunderSection125(3)ofCr.PCmakeitveryclearthatonemonth’simprisonmentisthemaximumimprisonmentforeachmonth’sdefaultateachtime.Thismustleadtotheinevitableandunmistakableconclusionthateachmonth’sdefaultwouldbevisitedwiththemaximumsentenceofonemonth’simprisonment.Themerefactthatthedestitutehasnotchosentocomplaineverymonthandhaschosentocomplainofthebreachinrespectofpluralityofmonthsinonepetitionwithinaperiodoftwelvemonths,cannotatalldelivertothedefaulteranyundeservedadvantage.Onthefaceofit,thecontentionappearstometobeillogical,irrational,andunreasonable.Itisobviouslyunacceptableandunsustainable.Thepolicyoflawcannotbetocompelsuchclaimantstocometocourtwithseparatepetitionsforeachmonth’sdefault.Thatwouldbetotallyanunreasonablemannerofapproachingthequestion.
TheSupremeCourtwasobviouslynotconsideringthequestionwhethermorethanonemonth’simprisonmentcanbeawardedforbreachofthedirectiontopaymaintenancecommittedinrespectofmoremonthsthanone.IcannotacceptthesuggestiononlybecausemanyFamilyCourts/Magistrate’sCourtshavechosentofollowthisinterpretation.ItwouldbemyopicandpueriletoholdthattheSupremeCourtsaidso.Thispositiongoesagainstthepolicyoflawandspecificstipulations.Precedentscannotbereadorunderstoodignoringthespecificlanguageofthestatutoryprovisions.TheinterpretationswhichthePetitioner’s(husband’s)counselwantstoplaceonShahahKhatoonisunacceptableforthereasonthatthesamesuffersfromthatspecificvice.
Thecourtgavethefollowingformularegardingimprisonment:
Ifthereisnopaymentofmaintenanceduefor‘n’numberofmonths,thedefaulterinoneExecutionPetitioncanbesentencedtoimprisonmentuptoamaximumof‘n’months,provided‘n’doesnotexceedtwelve.
Ifthereisabreachofpaymentofmaintenancedueforoneparticularmonth–notwithstandingthefactthatsuchpaymentwasnotmadefor‘n’monthsfromthedateonwhichitbecamedue,thedefaultercanbesentencedonlytoamaximumimprisonmentforonemonthandnot‘n’months.Evenwhenthebreachinrespectofoneparticularmonthcontinuesforanylengthoftime,themaximumsentenceforbreachoftheliabilitytopayonemonth’smaintenancecontinuestobeonemonthonly.
![Page 89: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 89 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
UnderSection125(3)ofCr.PC,ifthehusbanddefaultsinpaymentofmaintenance,applicationforissuingwarrantforrecoverymustbefiledwithinoneyearfromthedateonwhichtheamountbecamedue.Recoveryapplicationsformorethantwelvemonthscannotbefiledandtheamountwouldlapseiftheapplicationshavenotbeenfiledwithintheprescribedtimeframe.
(p.201) However,iftheapplicationhasbeenfiledwithinthistimeframeandwaspendingincourt,thentheamountwouldnotlapse.Theapplicantcanalsofileinterimapplicationformentioningtheamountswhichhavesubsequentlybecomeduewhiletheoriginalapplicationwaspendingincourt.TheSupremeCourtinShantha@Ushadeviv.Shivnanjappa,366hasheldthatsuchsubsequentapplicationsareonlysupplementaryorincidentaltotheapplicationalreadyfiledwithintheperiodoflimitation.TheAllahabadHighCourtfollowedthisrulinginDilshadHajiRisalv.StateofUP,367andheldthatarrearsof41months,whichhadbecomedue,arenotbarredbylimitationasthefirstapplicationwasstillpendingincourt.
InDikshaRaniv.DeepChand,368despitetheimprisonmentthehusbanddidnotcomplywiththeorder.Thehusbandtriedtoevadeserviceanddidnotappearincourtduringsubsequentproceedings.Butwhenthewifecouldnotbepresent,therevisioncourtdismissedherapplicationfordefault.Whilequashingthisorder,inanappealfiledbythewife,thehighcourtofPunjabandHaryanacommented:Thehusband,thoughawareofthepresentproceedingspendingagainsthim,wasdeliberatelynotappearingbeforethecourt.Thehusbandisviolatingtheordersofthecourt.Ifthisapproachisallowed,itwouldeffecttheadministrationofjustice.Therevisionfiledbythewifewasdismissedindefaultfornon-prosecutionasshecouldnotappearwhenthecasewascalledout.Thishasresultedininjusticetothewifeandchildandcannotbejustified.Thetechnicalitiescannotbeallowedtostandinthewayofadministrationofjustice.Therevisioncourtwasboundtoconsiderthatthiswasacasewhereawifeandayoungchildarefightingfortheirsurvival.Thelowercourtwasdirectedtosecurethepresenceofthehusband,inamannerconsideredappropriate,includingtakinghimintocustodytoensurethathewouldcomplywiththedirectionspassedbythehighcourt.
InPadmov.SuratRam,369itwasheldthatthepowertoexecutetheorderofmaintenancelieswiththejudicialmagistrate.Thegrampanchayatdoesnothavethepowertoissuewarrantsfordefaultinpaymentofmaintenancedues.
Though,thelawprovidesforimprisonmentasadeterrentagainstdefaultinpayment,therearecaseswhereahusbandmaychoosetheoptionofimprisonmentratherthanpayingmaintenancetohiswifeandchildren.Seeingthroughsuchmanipulations,theGujaratHighCourtinBhavanabenShamhjuvhaiv.DineshPremjibhaiKapadia,370hasheldthatevenwhenthehusbandhasundergoneimprisonment,theamountwhichisduedoesnotbecomeirrecoverable.Warrantforattachmentofpropertiesforaccumulatedarrearsofmaintenancecanbeissued.Similarly,inRayinkuttyv.StateofKerala,371itwasheldthatfornoncomplianceoftheorderforpaymentofareasonableandfairsettlementtoaMuslimwife,thehusbandcanbeimprisoned.Butthiswillnotabsolvehimoftheliabilityofpayingtheamountwhichisdue.
![Page 90: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 90 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Beforeconcludingthissection,Ifeelconstrainedtoelaboratelyprofilethreecaseswhicharebrieflymentionedabove,tohighlighttheordealthatwomenhavetoendurewhileenforcingtheirlegalrightofpittanceofmaintenanceamounts.Thedetailedhistoryprovidesthetimeframeofthewindingcourtbattle,butthelawreportersdonotprovideaninsightinto(p.202) thecostsincurredinthiswindinglegalbattle.Thatislefttotheimaginationofthereader.
[email protected],thewifefiledformaintenanceforherselfandherdaughterin1991andbyanorderdated20January1993,thetrialcourtawardedRs500permonthtoherandRs300permonthtoherdaughter.Whenthehusbanddefaulted,thewifefiledexecutionproceedingsunderSection125(3)ofCr.PCforarrearsofRs5,363fromthedateoftheorderto31August1993.ThehusbandfiledcriminalrevisionapplicationbeforetheSessionsJudge,Tumkur,againsttheorderpassedbythetrialcourt,whichwasdismissedon26June1997.TheappealfiledbythehusbandagainstthisorderintheKarnatakaHighCourtwasalsodismissed.Thereafter,thewifefiledanInterimApplicationforarrearsofmaintenancefrom20January1993,thatis,thedateofthetrialcourt’sordertillthedateoffilingtheInterimApplication,thatis,16June1998,forthesumofRs46,000.
ThehusbanddepositedasumofRs5,365towardsthemaintenancefrom20January1993till31August1993.ButheobjectedtothewifeclaimingRs46,000onthebasisthatarrearsbeyondtheperiodofoneyearcannotbeclaimedduetothestipulationunderthefirstprovisotoSection125(3)ofCr.PC.Upholdingthiscontention,thetrialcourtdismissedtheInterimApplicationfiledbythewifeon13July2000onthegroundthatitisbarredbylimitation.ThewifechallengedthisorderbeforetheSessionsJudge,Tumkur.ThecriminalrevisionpetitionwasallowedbytheSessionsJudgebyanorderdated23November2002,andthematterwasremandedbacktothetrialcourt.
TheSessionsJudgeobservedthatsincethefirstInterimApplicationwaswithinlimitation,therewasnoneedoffilingafreshpetitionduringthependencyoftheapplicationunderSection125(3)ofCr.PCformaintenancewhichhadfallenduefortheperiodpostthisapplication.ItisimplicitinthepowersofthecourttomakeanorderdirectingthehusbandtomakepaymentofarrearsofmaintenanceuptothedateofthedecisionwhiledisposingofthefirstInterimApplicationforrecoveryofarrearsofmaintenance.TheSessionsJudgecommentedthatitisnotrequiredtofileafreshapplicationwhichmayleadtomultiplicityoflitigations.
Thehusbandchallengedthisorderin2003beforetheKarnatakaHighCourt.On11March2004,thehighcourtallowedthecriminalrevisionandsetasidetheorderoftheSessionsJudgeandheldthattheapplicationforclaimingarrearsofRs46,000wasbarredbylimitation.Aggrievedbythisorder,thewifeapproachedtheSupremeCourtbywayofaSpecialLeavePetitionwhichwasdecidedon6May2005,inherfavour.Thecourtheldthatsuchsubsequentapplicationsareonlysupplementaryorincidentaltotheapplicationalreadyfiledwithintheperiodoflimitation.Bythen14yearshadelapsedsincethewomanconcernedhadfirstapproachedthecourtformaintenance.
![Page 91: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 91 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InDilshadHajiRisalv.StateofUP,373thewifeSmtHazaraBegumhadapproachedthemagistrate’scourtformaintenanceforherselfandhertwochildrenunderSection125ofCr.PCon20May1999.Throughanexparteorderdated27July2000,maintenanceofRs1,500permonthforthreepersonswasawardedfromthedateoftheapplication.Thehusbanddidnotcomplywiththeorderandthewifefiledexecutionproceedingson28August2000forrecoveryandawarrantwasissuedagainstthehusbandforRs22,500fortheperiod20May1999to20August2000.Sincethehusbanddidnotcomplywiththedirectionsofthecourt,the(p.203) husbandwasimprisonedforonemonth.Thereafter,thewifefiledanotherapplicationon13February2004forexecutionofRs61,500,beingtheamountpayabletoherfor41months,fortheperiodbetween21August2000to20January2004.Thehusbandfiledanobjectiontothisapplicationon21July2004contendingthattheclaimforRs61,500wastimebarredastheapplicationwasfiledafteroneyearofitsbecomingdue.Also,sincehewasimprisonedfortheamountwhichwasdueearlier,thismattercouldnotbere-agitated.Healsosubmittedthathewaswillingtoreconcilewithhiswifeandmaintainhiswifeandchildren.Overridinghisobjections,theMagistratedirectedthatarecoverywarrantbeissuedagainstthehusbandforthemaintenanceamountduefortheperiodoffifteenmonthsfrom20May1999to20August2000forRs22,500.ThehusbandapproachedtheAllahabadHighCourtforquashingthisorderunderSection482ofCr.PC.
Byitsorderdated12September2005,thehighcourtallowedtheappealandremandedthematterbacktotheMagistrate’scourttoconsidertheoffermadebythehusbandtotakebackthewifeandmaintainherand,ifnecessary,upholdthewife’srighttorefusesuchofferwhenthereisjustgroundfordoingso.Ifthewifegivesadequatereasonsforrefusingtolivewithherhusband,shewouldnotbedeprivedofherrighttomaintenance.Thecourtalsocommentedthatawardingasentenceofimprisonmentisnosubstitutefortherecoveryoftheamountofmonthlyallowancewhichisduetothewife.Thecourtalsoheldthattheapplicationforarrearsof41monthswasnotbarredbylimitationwhenthefirstapplicationwasstillpending.
InPadmo’scase,374thewifehadapproachedtheCourtofAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Theog,on7May1996formaintenanceforherselfandherthreeminorchildren.On5June1996,theMagistratereferredthemattertothegrampanchayat,Basa,TehsilTheog,DistrictShimla.Thegrampanchayat,on6June1997,awardedRs300permontheachtothewifeandtheeldestchild,andRs200permontheachfortheyoungertwochildren,atotalofRs1,000permonth
Sincethehusbanddidnotcomplywiththisorder,thewifefiledforexecutionoftheorderandforpaymentofarrearsofRs3,400fortheperiod7May1996to7September1996.Thegrampanchayatissuednoticetothehusbandtodepositthearrearsofmaintenancewithintendays,failingwhichthematterwouldbetransferredtothecourtoftheJudicialMagistrate.Sincethehusbanddidnotappearbeforethegrampanchayat,theapplicationwasforwardedtotheJudicialMagistrate,Theog,forexecution.
Thehusbanddidnotfilehisreply.Thereafter,thematterwasreferredtotheLokAdalat
![Page 92: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 92 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
on18July1998,withthehopeofsomeamicablesettlement.Butsincethematterdidnotgetresolved,on3March1999,theSub-Judgetookupthematter.Afterhearingboththepartieson10May1999,hesentthematterbacktothegrampanchayatforexecution.HecommentedthattherewasnoprovisioninlawfortheGramPanchayattosendthefiletohiscourtforexecution.Thegrampanchayatdidnottakeanyfurtheractioninthematter.
SothewifeagainfiledanapplicationunderSection125Cr.PCinthecourtoftheAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Theog,on9April1999onthegroundthatsincetheearlierorderpassedbythepanchayatcouldnotbeexecuted,afreshorderofmaintenancemaybepassed.Thehusbandopposedthisapplicationonthegroundthatsincetheearlierorderexisted,afreshordercouldnotbepassed.Afterrecordingevidenceoftheparties,on17July2001,theAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrateupheldthehusband’s(p.204) contentionandheldthatthefreshapplicationwasnotmaintainableasthepreviousorderpassedbythepanchayatstillexistedandthepetitionershavenotassailedthesame.Thewifechallengedthisorderinthehighcourt.
On12April2002,thehighcourtpassedthefollowingorder:Ifafterissuanceofnoticebythegrampanchayat,thedefaulterdoesnotcomeforwardtopaytheamount,itisdifficultforthegrampanchayattoexecutetheorderofmaintenance,andtheonlycourseleftforitistoforwardtheorderofmaintenanceforexecutiontothejudicialmagistrateinwhosejurisdictionitissituated.ThegrampanchayathadrightlyforwardeditsorderofmaintenanceforexecutiontotheAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Thoeg.WhilehetookcognizanceofitinhiscapacityasSub-Judge,hewronglypassedtheorderthatthegrampanchayathadnopowerstoforwardtheorderofmaintenancepassedbyitforexecutiontohiscourt.Evenwhilepassingthesecondorderdated17July2001,dismissingthesecondpetition,theAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,hasnotcaredtoexaminetheprovisionsoflaw,withtheresultthatthepetitionersevenafterobtainingtheorderofmaintenanceintheirfavour,asfarbackason6June1997,couldnotgetapennyasmaintenancefromthehusbandandtheverypurposeoftheprovisionofSection125ofCr.PCisdefeated.Inthisviewofthematter,theordersdated10May1999and17July2001aresetaside,andtheAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Theog,isdirectedtoexecutetheorderdated6June1997,passedbythegrampanchayatinaccordancewithlawandtheobservationsmadehereinabove.Sincethematterispendingformorethanfouryears,thesaidcourtisdirectedtoexpeditethematterandprovidejusticeandsuccourtothehaplesswifeandchildren,leftinthelurchbythehusbandtofendforthemselves.
ThehighcourtalsodirectedthatacopyofthejudgmentshouldbeplacedbeforetheHonourableChiefJusticeforconsideringthedesirabilityofcirculatingacopyofthisordertoalltheJudicialMagistratesinthestatetoavoidsuchlapsesfromoccurringinfuture.
Attheendofthisordeal,itisleftforourimaginationtoguesswhetheranyofthethreewomenwhoseordealisrecordedherewereabletosecuretheamountswhichwereorderedasmaintenancefortheirbearsurvival.
![Page 93: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 93 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
ModificationofOrdersMaintenanceordersarenotordersofafinalnature.Ifsubsequentcircumstancessowarrant,eitherofthepartiescanapproachthecourtsformodificationoftheorder.InShardaDeviv.StateofBihar,375itwasheldthatSection127ofCr.PCconfersastatutoryrighttoclaimenhancementoftheoriginalamountawardedunderSection125Cr.PCsubjecttothepersonconcernedsatisfyingthecourtofthechangeincircumstancesfromwhentheoriginalorderwaspassed.
Increaseinexpendituretowardsthechildren’seducation,woman’sownlossofjoborinabilitytoearn,thedemiseofherparentswhowereprovidingfinancialsupporttoher,asubstantialincreaseinthehusband’sincome,etc.,arefactorswhichthecourtwillconsiderwhileorderingenhancementofthemaintenanceamountthathasbeenawardedtothewife.Thecourtwillalsobearinmindtheinflationandthecostoflivingindexanddecreaseinthevalueofrupee,sothattheremaynotbesuchasituationthatwhilethemaintenanceandlitigationexpensesremainstatic,inflationmayerodeitsmoneyvalue(Latav.CivilJudge,Bulandshar).376
(p.205) Thewifesecuringpermanentemploymentorincreaseinherearnings,wife’sremarriageorlivinginadultery,thesonattainingmajority,themarriageofthedaughter,lossofjoborsignificantloweringofhisownincome,hisretirement,illnessoroldagearecircumstanceswhichwouldentitleahusbandtoapproachthecourtforareductionintheamountofmaintenanceordered,orevenforcancellationoftheorder.Husband’sremarriageisnotaconditionwhichwouldwarrantcancellationoftheorderofmaintenanceawardedtotheearlierwife.Buttheincreaseinthenumberofdependentsmaybeafactorthatthecourtsmayconsiderwhilehearingtheapplicationformodificationoftheorder.
Iflumpsumamountsareawardedtothewifeasdivorcesettlement,thesamecannotberescindedifthedivorcedwomansubsequentlyremarries(NanigopalChakravortyv.RanubalaChakravorty).377Similarly,inRohtashSinghv.Ramendri,378andSanjeevKumarv.Dhanya,379thecourtshaveexplainedthatamaintenanceordercannotberescindedonthegroundofpost-divorceadultery.380
InRajashreeR.Dixitv.RajeshNageshDixit,381alterationofmaintenanceamountonthebasisofchangeinemploymentofhusbandwasheldtobemaintainable.InBibhutiBhushanPandeyv.StateofJharkhand,382thefamilycourthadenhancedthemaintenanceawardedtothewifeanddaughterfromRs800permonthtoRs2,000permonth,basedonthewife’scontentionthatthehusbandisearningRs12,000permonthasateacher.Thehusband’scontentionwasthattheenhancedamountwasonthehighersideasheisearningonlyRs8,301andhehastomaintainhisparentsandthreechildrenfromhisfirstwife.TheJharkhandHighCourtheldthatthesubmissioniswithoutsubstance.Onaccountofinflationinexpenditure,thewifeanddaughterareentitledtotheenhancedmaintenanceasorderedbythefamilycourt.InNarayanDasv.GitaRaniDas,383whileenhancingthemaintenanceawardedtothewife,thecourtheldthatriseincostofliving,increasesinearningofhusband,etc.,arecircumstanceswhichwould
![Page 94: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 94 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
warrantanincreaseinthemaintenanceamountawardedunderprovisionsofSection127ofCr.PC.
InLalitaRaniv.JagdishLal,384thewifechallengedtheorderwhichawardedRs3,500permonthasmaintenancetoherandhertwochildren.Thedaughter,thoughamajor,wasstilldependentasshewasstudyingincollege.ThesonwasintenthStandard.ThewifecontendedthatherhusbandwasworkinginthepublicsectorandhisincomehaddoubledfromRs10,000permonthtoRs22,000.Shepleadedthatthesumawardedisinadequatetomeettheneedsofmaintenanceandeducationalexpensesofherchildren.ThehighcourtenhancedtheamounttoRs10,000andheldthatreasonableexpensesforsustenanceandforthecare,maintenance,andeducationofchildrenlivingwithher,constituteimportantfactorswhichthecourtscannotignore,whilethehusband’sexpenditurehaddecreasedandhisearningshadincreased.Ontheotherhandthewifehadtospendmoreformaintenanceandcareofherchildren.Pricesofallessentialcommoditieshaddoubledinthelastsevenyearssincefilingofherpetition.Thetrialcourtattachedoverwhelmingimportancetowhat,perhaps,atbestcouldbe(p.206) onefactor,thatis,residenceofthewifeindisputedpremisesclaimedbyhusband’smother.Thisfactorcouldnothavecloudedthecourt’sapproachinappreciatingfactsintheproperperceptive.Thecourtcannotignoretheobligationofhusbandtomaintainhiswifeandchildren.
InVinodKumarRaiv.ManjuRai,385thedaughterwasaround16–17yearsofage.Thecourtcommentedthatprovisionswouldhavetobemadeforhermarriageinadditiontothecostofeducationandlivingexpenses.Thehighcourtheldthattheamountawardedbythetrialcourtthatis,Rs500forthedaughterandRs1,500forthewifewasmeagreandincreasedtheamounttoRs2,500each,forthewifeanddaughter.Thecourtalsodirectedthehusbandtobeartheexpensesofmarriageofhisdaughterwhenthetimecame.Thecourtcommentedthattheunjustifiedandbaselessaccusationsofinfidelityhurledatthewifeconstitutecrueltywhichwouldjustifythewife’sdemandtoliveseparatelyandreceivemaintenance.
InPremPrakashv.Nirmal,386theDelhiHighCourtheldthatthepleaofthehusbandtomodifythemaintenanceorderonthegroundofchangeofcircumstanceswasrightlyrejectedbythetrialcourt.AnorderofmaintenanceofRs5,000wassubsistingforfifteenyears.Thehusbandhadmadeseveralunsuccessfulattemptstohavetheordervaried,includingapproachingtheSupremeCourt.Thehusbandcontendedthatthewifehadremarriedandthedaughterdidnotbearhisname.Therewasalsodiscrepancyinthedateofbirthofthedaughter.Thehighcourtheldthatthehusband’sconductwascalumnious,inconstantlyquestioningparentageandlegitimacyofchild,andsuchconductcanhardlybeappreciated.TheHighCourtcommentedthatthetrialcourtrightlyagreedwiththecontentionofthewifethatthechild’sfatherwasshownasthematernalgrandfathersincetherewasathreatofconstantharassmentbythehusband.Thispossibilitycannotberuledout,havingregardtothehistoryofthecase.Theissueofawrongdateofbirthwasunnecessarilyhighlightedbythehusbandandthetrialcourthadrightlyheldittobeamistake.Asregardschangeofappellants’finances,thetrialcourt
![Page 95: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 95 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
wasrightlyscepticalabouthisclaimsincehehadnotdisclosedhisassetsorproducedanydocumentaryevidencewhatsoever.
InSirivellaRaov.SirivellaGnanamani,387theincomeofthehusband,workinginapetrolpump,wasRs2,400permonth.Thehusbandhadtolookafterhisagedparentsandhimself.MaintenancegrantedbytrialcourtwasreducedtoRs400permontheach,towifeandchildrenfromRs1,500,asgrantedbythetrialcourt.InSatishKumarSinghv.StateofBihar,388thewifeandfourminorchildrenwerelivingseparatelyandthehusbandwasnotmaintainingthem.Thehusbandsubmittedthathewasreadytoacceptthewifeandthechildrenandmaintainthembutthewifewasnotwillingtolivewiththehusband.Hisonlysourceofincomewasfromgivingprivatetuitions.Inviewofthis,theamountofmaintenancewasreducedfromRs1,400permonthtoRs1,000permonth,Rs300forthewifeandRs175permonthforeachchild.
Remarriageofthedivorcedwifeisafactortobeconsideredforvaryingthemaintenanceorder.InTapashKumarPaulv.SomaPaul,389itwasheldthattherewasnoproofthatthewifewaslivinginadulterywithanotherperson,whichdisqualifiedherfromgettingmaintenance.Thewifewasdrivenoutofthematrimonialhouseandthehusbandhadneglectedtomaintainher.(p.207) Butbasedonthehusband’searning,thecourtreducedtheamountofmaintenancefromRs1,000permonthtoRs500permonth.Itwasheldthatthewifeisentitledtoreceivethisamountasmaintenancetillthedateofherremarriage.ThecourtfurthercommentedthatSection127nowherelaysdownthatitwasthedutyofthewife,afterherre-marriage,toapproachthecourttoalterorcanceltheorderofmaintenance.Theaggrievedperson,againstwhomtheorderofmaintenanceispassed,shouldmovethecourtforalteration,modification,orcancellationofthemaintenanceorderduetochangeofcircumstances.TherewasnoquestionofrefundofRs14,000,approximately,obtainedbywifeasmaintenancefrompetitionerwithinterest.Thewifewasexpectedtolivehappilywithherpresenthusbandwithoutanydisturbanceandthehusbandoughtnottoclaimthebalanceamount.InGomtiv.Ramanand,390thesamepointwasreiteratedandthecourtheldthatthedivorcedwomanisentitledtomaintenanceuntilherremarriageandtheburdenliesonthehusbandtoprovethatthewifehasre-married.
SectionC:RighttoMatrimonialHomeandPropertyTwodistinctrightswhichareimplicitinthemarriagecontractaretherighttoresideinthematrimonialhomeandtherighttoafinancialsettlementattheterminationofmarriageareexaminedhere.Whilemaintenanceisalsoaneconomicright,itisaconditionalrightcontingentuponaperson’sneedorabilitytosustainoneself.Apersoncapableofsupportingoneselfisnotentitledtomaintenance.Inthiscontext,therighttoresideinthematrimonialhomeandarighttofinancialsettlement,ordivisionofassetsattheterminationofmarriage,arecrucialeconomicrights.Whilemaintenancecanbeviewedasasustenance‘dole’forbasicsurvival,whichtheprevailingsocialconditionsnecessitate,matrimonialhomeandpropertycanbeconstruedas‘rights’whichwouldeconomicallyempowerawomanandredeemherfromthesituationofperpetualdependency.
Duringthelaterhalfofthelastcenturywhendivorcelawsbecamemorelax,most
![Page 96: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 96 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
countriesenactedlawswhichwouldeconomicallyempowerwomenatthetimeofdivorce.Butthisissueseemstohaveescapedtheattentionoflegislatorsandlawreformersinourcountryduringthecorrespondingperiod.
Therightofresidenceinthematrimonialhomeisacrucialrightofsurvivalformostmarriedwomenandisimplicitwithinthecontractofmarriage.But,sincethisrightwasnotstatutorilyprotected,ahusbandcould,athiswhim,drivethewifeoutofthedomesticresidence.Devoidofstatutoryprotection,therighthingeduponastutelawyering,sympatheticandsensitivejudges,andstrayinnovativejudicialpronouncements.Women’sgroupsinIndiahadbeencampaigningforseveraldecadesforaspecificlawwhichwouldprotectthisright.Finally,undertheProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct,2005(PWDVA),thisrightwasawardedstatutoryrecognitionunderthenotionofasharedhousehold.
However,therightunderthePWDVAisofalimitednatureanddoesnotgivethewomantitleorinterestintheproperty.Italsodoesnotprotectthewomanagainstthirdparties(forinstance,thelandlord).Itisalsodifficulttoenforceafterdivorcesincedivorceseversthemaritalbond.
LoweandDouglas(1998:134)explainthattherearetwointerrelatedissueswithinthenotionofthematrimonialhome,ownershipandoccupation.Thefirstisinwhomarethelegalandbeneficialinterestsinthepropertyvested(p.208) and,thesecond,whatrightsofoccupationdoeseachpartyhaveinthehome,irrespectiveofownership.WhilePWDVAaddressedthesecondconcern,thefirsthadremaineddormantduringthecampaign.
Inordertoexpandthescopeofeconomicrightsupondivorce,thereisaneedtoevolvetheconceptofmatrimonialproperty.Sincemarriageisnotviewedasan‘economicpartnership’,onmarriageawomandoesnotacquireanyrightsinherhusband’spropertyand,hence,sheisnotentitledtoclaimdivisionofassetsatthetimeofdivorce.Theonlyrelevantfactorsfordeterminingpropertyclaimsaretitleandfinancialcontributions.Hence,thepropertyacquiredbythehusbandistreatedashisexclusiveproperty.Ourmatrimonialstatutesdonotawardanyrecognitiontoawoman’snon-monetarycontributiontothedomestichouseholdduringthesubsistenceofthemarriage.Thecontributionofthewifeincreatingfamilyassets,throughherunpaidlabourbyperformingherdomesticduties,isnotconsideredarelevantfactorfordeterminationofhershareintheseassets.
Inthisrespect,Indialagsfarbehindmostothercountrieswhichawardrecognitionofawoman’scontributiontocreatingfamilyassetsand,hence,haveevolveddetailedguidelinesfordeterminingawoman’sshareinthematrimonialproperty.Sincethisisanemergingaspectoffamilylaw,itisincludedhereforconceptualclarityandlegislativeinterventions.
RighttoMatrimonialHome
ConceptofMatrimonialHomeUnderEnglishLaw
![Page 97: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 97 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
ConceptofMatrimonialHomeUnderEnglishLaw
SinceourlegalmaximsarederivedfromEnglishcommonlawandAnglo-Saxonjurisprudence,itwouldberelevanttohaveanoverviewofthedevelopmentoftheserightsundertheEnglishlawasitprovidessomeimportantmarkers.
TheEnglishwomenhadtocarryoutlongandsustainedcampaignsfortheirrighttoownproperty,forashareinthematrimonialproperty,andfortherightofresidenceinthematrimonialhome.Asdiscussedearlier,untilthemid-nineteenthcentury,marriedwomeninEnglanddidnothavearighttodivorceandtheyhadnorighttoownproperty.AccordingtotheBlackstonianprinciplesthenprevailinginEngland,aftermarriage,thewomanlostherrightoverherownproperty.Marriagevirtuallymeantalegaldeathforthewoman.Thehusbandbecamethecustodianofherpersonandherproperty,andhecoulddealwithitasperhisownwhimsandfancies.391
Duringthemid-nineteenthcentury,throughtheenactmentoftheMatrimonialCausesActof1857,Englishwomenwereawardedalimitedrightofdivorceundercertainstringentconditions.392Butthisenactmentdidnotdeterminewomen’srighttoseparatepropertyevenafterdivorce.Soduringthelaterdecades,alongwiththesuffragettemovementwhichdemandedtherighttovoteforwomen,theyalsoraisedthedemandforlegalrecognitionoftheirrighttoownproperty.Asaresponsetothiscampaign,thefirstenactmentwaspassedin1872whichwastitledtheMarriedWomen’sPropertyRightsAct,whichawardedrightsovertheirseparatepropertyforwomenwhoweredivorcedorlegallyseparated.Thiswasalimitedrightovertheirseparatepropertyacquiredafterdivorce/separationanddidnotalterthesituationofwomenwhilethemarriagewassubsisting.Thiswasfollowedbyanother(p.209) legislationwithasimilartitle,theMarriedWomen’sPropertyRightsAct,1882,whichslightlyimprovedthepositionofmarriedwomen.Butfromthenonwards,aseriesoflegislationswereenactedwhichfurtherstrengthenedthemarriedwomen’srighttoproperty.Finally,in1935,thedifferencebetweenamarriedandanunmarriedwomanwasabolishedandmarriedwomenbecamefullownersoftheirownindividualproperty,evenduringthesubsistenceoftheirmarriage.Throughthisenactment,theBlackstonianprinciplethatwomenarethepropertyoftheirhusbandsandtheyarenotentitledtoholdpropertyintheirnameduringthesubsistenceoftheirmarriage,wasfinallylaidtorest.393
Justwhenonesetofproblemswereresolved,womenwereconfrontedwithanother.Theseweredifficultyearsofrecessionandwar.Alargenumberofwomenhadtoforsaketheirtraditionalroleashousewivesornon-earningmembersoftheirhouseholdsandentertheorganizedlabourforce.Thisenabledthemtoearnaseparateincomeduringtheirmarriage.Theywerenolongerthedependentwives,butwereearningmembersoftheirfamiliesand,inthiscapacity,contributedtothefamilyincome.But,sincethematrimonialhomewasownedbythehusband,hecoulddispossessher.Shehadnoremedyagainstsuchdispossession.Afterthewar,thesocialandeconomicclimatechanged.Propertyownershipincreased,withpurchasesbeingmadewiththeaidofmortgages.Propertypricesescalatedanddivorceratesspiraled.Thecombinationofthesefactorsresultedinagreatdealoflitigationaroundtheprimaryasset,thefamilyhome.Thisbroughtintofocustheinjusticecausedtowomenthroughtheapplicationof
![Page 98: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 98 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
strictrulesofpropertyownershipandthedoctrineofseparationofownership,asbetweenthespouses.Traditionally,theclaimdependeduponwhichspousehadpaidthemortgagebills,sinceonlypaymenttowardsthepurchaseofthepropertywoulddetermineownership.
ButLordDenning,alegendinhisowntimeandachampionofwomen’srights,pointedoutthatitmaybepurelyamatterofconvenienceastowhichspousepaysoffthemortgageandwhichonepaystheotherhouseholdexpenses(LoweandDouglas1998:135).Thecreditforevolvingarevolutionaryconceptofthedesertedwife’sequitymustbeattributedtohim.Hefirmlybelievedthatitwashisdutytodispensejusticeratherthanmerelyadheretolegaltechnicalities.InNovember1947,barelythreeyearsafterhewasappointedasaHighCourtJudge,whilehewassittingasKingsBenchjudge,hedeliveredthefirsthistoricjudgmentinacasetitledHv.H.394Aswastheestablishedpattern,thematrimonialhomewasinthenameofthehusband.Hehadlivedtherewithhiswifeandaninvalidson.Duringthewar,thehusbandlefthiswifeandwenttolivewithanotherwoman.Thewifeobtainedamaintenanceorderagainstherhusbandonthebasisthatshewouldgoonlivinginthematrimonialhomealongwiththeson.Thehusbandapproachedthewifeforadivorcewiththefollowingconditions:‘I’llgiveyouthehouse,ifyouwillgivememyfreedom.’Thewifedeclinedandthehusbandinitiatedproceedingsforpossessionofthehouse.
Thehousebelongedtothehusbandandthewifedidnotevenhavethestatusofatenant.Hence,shehadnolegalremedyagainstdispossessionbyherhusband.InvokingSection17oftheMarriedWomen’sPropertyAct,1882(MWPA),whichstipulatedthat‘incaseofanydisputebetweenahusbandandwifeastothetitleorpossessionofproperty,thejudgemight(p.210) makesuchorderashethinksfit,’heprotectedthewoman’srightofresidenceasagainstthehusband’stitletotheproperty.Thiswasahistoricalrulingwhichturnedthetideinfavourofwomenandbecamealegalprecedent(Heward2003:49–50).
Whiletherightofresidencewasgettingestablished,atleastagainstthehusband,anewersituationarosewhichbroughtinfurthercomplexities.Betweenhusbandandwife,the1882Actworkedwell,butdifficultiesarosewhentheinterestsofthirdpartieswereaffected.Ifthehusbandwentbankrupt,hiscreditorscoulddispossessthewifefromthematrimonialhome.Thewifehadnoprotectionagainstthecreditors.Afterthewar,ithadbeenestablishedthatwherethehusbandownedthematrimonialhomeandwaslivingtherewithhiswife,hecouldnotturnherout.LordDenningheldthatadeserterhusbandcouldnotbeplacedinabetterpositionthaniftheywerelivingtogetherbytakingadvantageofhisownwrong,thatis,desertion.Thehusband’sdutywastoprovidethewifewitharoofoverherhead,andbyprovidingamatrimonialhomehegiveshertheauthoritytobethere.Inlaw,adesertedwifehasanirrevocableauthoritytoremaininthematrimonialhome.Thisauthorityisrevocableonlybyacourt.
InBendallv.McWhirter,thehusbandwastheownerofthehouse,wherehelivedwithhiswifeandchildren.Hedesertedthewifebutbeforeheleft,heassuredherthatshecouldhavethehouseandfurniture.Later,hewentbankruptandhistrusteesin
![Page 99: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 99 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
bankruptcyproceededtosellthehouseanddividetheproceedsamongthecreditors.Togetthebestpricetheywantedtosellwithvacantpossession,butthewiferefusedtoleavethehouseandthetrusteesinbankruptcybroughtanactionforpossessionagainsther.WhentheCountyCourtpassedanorderinfavourofthecreditorsforpossession,thewifeappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.In1953,LordDenning,whoheardtheappealaspartofathree-JudgeBench,reversedtheorderandheldthatadesertedwifeinoccupationofthematrimonialhomehadapersonallicense,revocableonlyuponthehusbandobtaininganorderunderSection17ofthe1882Act.Herrightofresidencedoesnotcometoanendautomaticallyonthehusband’sbankruptcy.Thetrusteeinbankruptcytakessubjecttoequities.Therefore,hetakessubjecttothewife’srightinequity(ibid.:50).
Fromthenonwardstill1965,throughaseriesofjudgments,hefurtherconsolidatedthepositionofthedesertedwife.In1956,theRoyalCommissiononMarriageandDivorceheld:Wethinkithasbeenrighttoaffordthisprotectiontoadesertedwife,toallowhertokeeparoofoverherhead;itwouldbeshockingtocontemplatethatahusbandcouldputhiswifeandchildrenintothestreet,sothathecouldhimselfreturntoliveinthehouse,perhapswithanotherwoman(ibid.:51).
Inalaterjudgmentdeliveredin1962,Hinev.Hine,395LordDenningruledthatfamilypropertyhadtobetreateddifferentlyfromotherformsofproperty.ExpandingthescopeofthecontroversialSection17ofMWPA,heheldthatthisprovisionwasnotmerelyproceduralinnature,butinfactconferredasubstantivepoweruponthejudgetoreallocatepropertyrightsbetweentheparties.Itwasruledthatthediscretiontranscendsallrights,legalandequitable,andenablesthecourttomakesuchordersasmaybefairandjust.
However,thisprinciplewasoverturnedbytheHouseofLordsinPettittv.Pettitt,396whichheldthatSection17ofMWPAwasmerelyprocedural.Thisviewwasreaffirmedagainin(p.211) Gissingv.Gissing.Thesedecisionsdealtasevereblowtotherightofadesertedwifeandcurtailedthepowerofthecourtstoreallocatematrimonialproperty.InPettittv.Pettitt,itwaspointedoutthatunderSection17thequestionforthecourtwas,whoseisthisandnottowhomshallthisbegiven.Followingthisunanimousruling,twofundamentalrulesemerged.First,thatEnglishlawdoesnotrecognizethedoctrineofcommunityofpropertyoranyseparaterulesoflawapplicabletofamilyassets.Consequently,ifonespousebuyspropertyintendedforcommonusewiththeother,whetheritisahouse,furniture,oracar,thiscannotpersegivethelatteranyproprietaryinterest.Thesecondprinciplewhichflowsfromthefirst,whichwasstatedinGissingv.Gissing,397thatifeitherofthemseekstoestablishabeneficialinterestinproperty,thelegaltitletowhichisvestedintheother,heorshecandosoonlybyestablishingthatthelegalownerholdsthepropertyontrustfortheclaimant(LoweandDouglas1998:136).
Despitetheseadversecomments,therulingprotectedthedesertedwife’srighttoresideinthematrimonialhomebyinvokinganotioncalled‘constructivetrust’.Thewifewasinoccupationofthehousethroughaconstructivetrustthroughthecontractof
![Page 100: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 100 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
marriage,andahusbandcouldnottakeadvantageofhisownwrongbydispossessingthewifefromthematrimonialhomeorbydesertingher.
InNationalProvincialBankLtd.v.Ainsworth,398LordDenningdeliveredyetanotherhistoricalrulingandheldthatthebankcouldnotclaimpossessionagainstthewife,whowasinpossessionofthematrimonialhome.Heruledthatsincethewifehasarighttoremaininthematrimonialhome,itisunlawfulforthehusbandtoenterintoanyagreementdesignedtoturnherout.‘ItisacasewhereIwouldtemperjusticewithmercy.Justicetothebankwithmercytothewife’,heproclaimed.ButtheHouseofLordsoverruledthisdecisionin1965,whichmadethepositionofawifeprecariousagainstthehusband’screditors.LordDenningrespondedwithacommentthatthedecisionhadblownthedesertedwife’sequitytosmithereens.
Thepublicoutcry,againstthisdecisionoftheHouseofLords,ledtotheenactmentoftheMatrimonialHomesActin1967,whichspecificallyempoweredthecourtstodecidetheissueofpropertywhiledealingwithissuesofdesertionanddivorce.Butthewifehadtoregisterachargeagainstthehusband’sproperty.Subsequentenactmentshavestrengthenedwomen’srights,notonlytothematrimonialresidencebutalsotomatrimonialproperty.ImportantamongthemistheMatrimonialProceedingsandPropertyAct,1970.
Thenecessityofenactingthe1970Actaroseinthecontextofreformsinfamilylawwhichwerebroughtinthroughanenactmentin1969,theDivorceReformAct,whichintroducedthe‘breakdowntheory’ofdivorce.Thoughagenderneutraltermspousewasused,therewasafearthatmanyinnocentwives,divorcedagainsttheirwill,wouldbeleftwithinadequatefinancialprovisionsanddivorcewouldcausegraveeconomichardshipstothem.In1973,provisionsofboththesestatuteswereincorporatedintotheMatrimonialCausesAct,1973.399
Theseenactmentstipulatedthatthoughthecourtsmustgiveeffecttolegalrightsofparties,theymustalsohonourthewife’srightinequity(p.212) toresideinthematrimonialhome.Thecourtsbegantoorderthequantumofmaintenanceonthebasisofhercontinuedrightofresidenceinthematrimonialhome.Inseveralcases,ordersofpossessionwerepassedagainsttrustees,incasesofbankruptcyofthehusband,andinfavourofthewife,whohadapriorrightofresidence.
EvolutionoftheConceptinIndia
Thedesertedwife’srightinequitywasgettingformulatedaroundthetimewhentheHinduMarriageActwasbeingenacted,butthiscampaigndidnotinfluencethelawmakingprocessinIndia.Thisisobviouswhenweexaminetheprovisionsofthetwostatuteswhichwereenactedaroundthattime,theSpecialMarriageAct,1954,andtheHinduMarriageAct,1955.TheselawswereformulatedonthebasisoftheearlierrightsunderEnglishlawandconfinedonlytotraditionalmatrimonialreliefssuchasdivorce,separation,annulmentofmarriage,etc.,eventhoughtheEnglishlawhadmovedonfromthere.400
![Page 101: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 101 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Section27oftheHinduMarriageActmakesavaguereferencetoproperty,butcontextualizesitwithinalimitedscopeofaHinduwoman’srightsoverthecustomarygifts,receivedjointlybythespouses,atthetimeofmarriage.Thewordingis‘propertypresentedatoraboutthetimeofmarriage,whichmaybelongjointlytoboththehusbandandthewife.401Whileitispossibletostretchthescopeofthisprovisiontomatrimonialpropertyacquiredafterthemarriage,aswasdonebytheSupremeCourtinB.P.AchalaAnandv.S.AppiReddy(discussedlater),itisanextrapolationanditdoesnotunderminetheneedforaseparatelawregardingdistributionofmatrimonialpropertyondivorce.
Ondivorce,womenareentitledtoonlyameagreamountofmaintenancewhichisinsufficienttoprocureseparateresidentialpremisesforthemselvesandthechildrenundertheircustody.Womenwhohavesecuredajobarenotevenentitledtomaintenance,eventhoughduringthesubsistenceofmarriagetheymayhaveoptedoutofpaidemploymenttosupportthefamilyandtohaveandraisechildren.Adecreeofdivorcewilldisentitleawomanofherrighttoashelterormatrimonialresidence.Thisbecomesacompellingreasonforwomennottooptfordivorceeveninsituationsofextremedomesticviolence.Thefearofbeingrenderedshelter-lessisoverwhelming,particularlyforwomenintheurbansetting,wherehousingisexpensiveandbeyondtheaccessofordinarymiddleandlowincomegroups.
TheonlyrecognitionoftherightofwomentoresidenceisfoundundertheHinduAdoptionsandMaintenanceAct,1956,wheremaintenanceisdefinedasinclusiveofaprovisionofresidence.However,residencedoesnotspecificallymeanthematrimonialhome.But,sinceresidencecomesundertheambitofmaintenance,thecourtsseemtothinkthatanenhancedmaintenancewouldcompensatethewomanforthelossofshelter.
(p.213) Twolegalconceptsrelatedtopropertyarerelevantindisputesoverthematrimonialhome,ownershipandpossession.Whileownershipimplieslegaltitle,thecourtsareconstrainedtoprotectthewomen’srighttoshelterbyinvokingtheprincipleofpossession.Thecourtshavethepowertoprotectthisrightinlieuofthewomen’scontributiontothedomesticunit,botheconomicallyandthroughservicesrenderedthroughperformingdomesticduties.Thoughtherightisnotdefinedunderourprevailingmatrimonialstatutes,duetoescalatingpropertyprices,injunctionagainstdispossessionisemergingasahighlycontestedissueinmatrimoniallitigation.
Theearlieracceptednotionwasthatsincethetitleisinthenameofthehusbandorhisfamilymembers(father-in-law,mother-in-law,brother-in-law,etc.),itisthesoleprerogativeofthepersonholdingthetitletopermitresidenceinthesepremises.Thecontractofmarriagedidnotincludewithinitselfthewoman’srightinequitytoresideinthesepremisesanditdidnotprotectheragainstdispossession.Despitethegainsmadeinotherareas,here,thenotionthatamanisthemasterofhishomeseemedtoprevailuntilrecently.Thefactthatmostwomencontributetothematrimonialhomeeitherthroughtheirownearningsorthroughtheirunpaidlabour,wasoverlookedwhileascertainingtherightofresidenceandrighttopropertyinrespectofthematrimonialhome.Butgradually,thisnotiongavewaytoanotionakintotheconstructivetrustunderEnglishlawandcourtsbegantorecognizethewomen’srightofresidence.
![Page 102: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 102 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Formostmiddleandlowerclassfamilies,thedwellinghouse(ormatrimonialhome)istheironlyorprimaryasset.Inurbancentres,withescalatingpropertyprices,therighttothedwellinghomebecomesacrucialeconomicissueinmatrimoniallitigation.Thoughstatutoryprovisionwaslacking,theissueofrightofresidenceandsettlementofmatrimonialassetsemergedasahighlycontestedissueinurbanmatrimonialdisputes.Thematrimonialcourtsareconstantlycalledupontoadjudicateoverthisissueduringmatrimoniallitigation.
Tentativelyandgradually,thecourtsstartedawardingrecognitiontowomen’srighttomatrimonialresidence.Perhapsitisnotsurprising,giventhehighlyvolatilehousingsituationinMumbai,thattheconcernoverrightofresidenceinthematrimonialhomewasfirstarticulatedthroughdecisionsoftheBombayHighCourtinthe1960s,1970s,and1980s.
Inoneoftheearliestcasesontheissueofmatrimonialhome,BanooJalDaruwallav.JalC.Daruwalla,402itwasheldthatthecourtdoesnotdealwithquestionsoftitlestopropertiesandquestionsarisingbetweenahusbandandwifeasco-ownersofproperties,exceptinrespectofjointpropertiespresentedatoraboutthetimeofmarriage.Inrespectofallotherpropertiesownedorallegedtobeownedasco-ownersbetweenhusbandandwife,thecasewouldbedecidedasperthegenerallawofproperty.ButamentionwasmadetotherightofawifetoresideinthematrimonialhomebyrelyingupontheobservationsofLordDenning,inBendallv.McWhirter,thatitisthedutyofthecourttoensurethatthewifeisnotthrownoutofthematrimonialhome.Sinceitwasnotpossibleforthewifetoresideinthematrimonialhome,thewifewasawardedRs275permonthasmaintenance.
In1977,inalandmarkdecisionA.v.B,403theBombayHighCourtintroducedtheconceptofprotectiveinjunctionstosafeguardwomen’srightsandheld:‘Whilepassingamatrimonialdecree,thecourthasthepowertograntaninjunctionrestrainingthehusbandfromenteringthematrimonialhome….’Herethepremises(p.214) belongedtothewifewhowasseparated,andtheinjunctionwasgrantedagainstthehusband,restraininghimfromenteringherpremises.Afterfacingextremephysicalcrueltyandalsohumiliation,thewifehadfiledapetitionforjudicialseparationandforaninjunctionrestrainingthehusbandfromenteringthematrimonialhome.Whilegrantingherjudicialseparation,thecourtheld:‘…awoman,whowantstobeeconomicallyindependent…wouldbeapprehensivethatitwouldbedangeroustolivewithahusbandwhoisphysicallyabusiveandaccusesherofhavingextra-maritalrelationswithhercolleagues….’
TherulinginAbdulRahimv.Padma,404isyetanothermilestone.Inthiscase,therightofthewifeintheresidentialpremisesownedbythehusband’sfatherwasawardedrecognition.Thecaseconcernedacoupleinaninter-religiouscivilmarriage.Butthehusbandallegedthatlaterthewifehadconvertedandtheyhadperformednikah.Whentherelationshipsbetweenthemwerestrained,thehusbandpronouncedtalaqandthrewthewifeoutandrestrainedherfromenteringthematrimonialhome.Later,hefiledacivilsuitrestrainingherentryintothematrimonialhomeandobtainedanexparteinjunction
![Page 103: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 103 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
againstheronthegroundthatsheisnolongerhiswife.Inappeal,thehighcourtheldthatsinceitwasacivilmarriage,itcouldnotbedissolvedthroughanoraltalaq.But,subsequently,onthepremisethatthemarriagehadbrokendownirrevocably,thecourtgrantedajudicialdivorce.
Thewifechallengedtheinjunctiononthegroundthatitwashermatrimonialhomeandshehadcontributedtowardsitfromhersavings.Thecourtruled:‘Thewifehasarighttostayinthehomesincethehusbandhadnotprovidedheranyalternateaccommodation.Itisjustandfairthattheflatbepartitionedandthewifeallocatedaspecificportion,thereof,forherresidence.’
Later,thisrightwasawardedrecognitionbyvariousotherhighcourts.InthematterofM/sBharatHeavyPlatesandVesselsLtd.,Vishakapatnam,405isaninterestingcasewheretheemployerofthehusbandwasrestrainedfromdispossessingthewifefromthecompanyquarters.Anemployeeofagovernmentownedandcontrolledcompanyandhiswifewerelivingtogetherinthecompanyquarterswiththeapparentconsentofthecompany.Thequarterallocatedtothecouplewastheirmatrimonialhome.Soon,differencescroppedupbetweenthemleadingtotheirestrangement.Finally,thewifewenttothecourt,chargingherhusbandwithcriminalneglecttomaintainherandthreeminorchildrenandwasawardedmaintenance.Consequently,thehusbandleftthematrimonialresidenceanditwasoccupiedsolelybythewifeandherminorchildren.Asaretaliatoryaction,thehusbandterminatedtheleaseofthequarter,exposingthewifeandtheminorchildrentoeviction,whichledthewifetoapproachthecourtforprotection.Accordingly,anorderofinjunctionrestrainingthecompanyfromevictingthewifeandtheminorchildren,pendingdisposalofthesuit,cametobepassed.Thehusbandwasdirectedtopaytherent,whichwastobeadjustedagainstthemaintenancethatwaspayable.Againstthisorder,thecompanyfiledarevisionpetition.However,thesamewasheldtobenotmaintainableasitneithercausedirreparableinjurytothecompanynoroccasionedfailureofjustice.Theorderofinjunctionprovidedfordeductingtheamountofrentfromthesalaryofthehusbandandfromtheamountofmaintenancewhichwasduetothewife.Duetothis,thecourtheldthatneitherthecompany(p.215) northehusbandsufferedanymonetarylossorirreparableinjuryinthecontinuedpossessionofthecompanyquarterbythewife.
Thecourtfurthercommentedthatthequarterwasownedbyalegalpersonandnotbyanaturalpersonandwasmeanttobeusedbyitsemployees.Thefactthatthecompanywasastateinstrumentality,underanobligationtoactinaccordancewithArticles14and21,wasanadditionalgroundforholdingthattherewasnofailureofjustice.Itwasalsoheldthatthehusbandhadanobligationtoprovidesheltertohiswifeandchildren.Thehusbandandthecompany,actingindifferentways,hadbeenrecognizingalltheseyearstherightofoccupationofthequarterbythewifeashermatrimonialright.Itwasheldthatinthesecircumstances,theinterlocutoryordercouldnotbesaidtooccasionanyfailureofjustice.Bypreventingthestateinstrumentalityfromrenderingthewifeandthechildrenhomeless,thecourtonlypreventedfailureofjustice.
![Page 104: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 104 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Theseearlylandmarkjudgmentsdidnotreceivewidemediapublicityand,attimes,evenlawyersandjudgesintrialcourtswerenotawareoftheselegalprinciples.Evenwomenthemselvesdidnotbelievethattheyhadarightinlawtoresideintheirmatrimonialhomeandthatthehusbandandhisrelativescouldnotdispossessthemattheirwhimsandfancies.Duringthisperiod,issuesofdowryharassmentanddowrydeathswereinthenews.Whenawomancomplainedofdomesticviolence,socialworkerinterventionswereaimedatadvisingwomennottotolerateviolenceandhumiliationandinsteadofcontinuingwiththemarriage,tooptforadivorce.Butwomenthemselveswerereluctant,astheywereawarethatenteringtherealmoflitigationwouldrenderthemshelter-less.Mostwomenbelievedthatacompromisethroughacquiescencetothedemandsofthehusbandandhisfamilywastheironlyoption.Theydidnotbelievethattheyhadalegalrightofresidenceintheirmatrimonialhomeagainstthehusband’swishes.So,theyagreedtoreconciliationsontermslaiddownbythehusbandinordertoprotecttheirrighttoshelter.
However,inlateryears,divorcepetitionsincreasinglybroughtintofocusissuesrelatedtomatrimonialhomeandpropertyandthecourtswereconstrainedtoexaminethisright.Therewereafewpositiverulingswhichrecognizedtherightofwomentoproceedsfromthesaleofthematrimonialhome.
InAjitBhagwandasUdeshiv.KumudAjitUdeshi,406thecourtupheldthewife’srighttooccupyapartofthematrimonialhomeafterherdivorcesinceshehadnootheralternateaccommodation.Thepartiesweremarriedfortwentyyearsandhadthreechildren.Duetoamatrimonialdispute,thehusbandfiledapetitionfordivorcewhichwasdecided,afteralongdrawnlitigation,infavourofhusbandonthegroundofdesertionbythewife.ThecourtawardedRs1000asmaintenancetothewifeandallowedhertoresideinonepartofthematrimonialhome.Thehusbandfiledanappealagainstthegrantoftherightofresidencetothewife.TheBombayHighCourtupheldthedecisionofthefamilycourtgrantingthewiferightofresidenceinpartofthematrimonialhome.Thecourts’rulingwasbasedonthepremiseoffinancialcontribution.Itwasprovedthatthoughboththepartieshadcontributedwhileacquiringthematrimonialhome,asubstantialamountofdeposit,whichispopularlyreferredtoaspagdi,waspaidbythewifeoutoftheamountreceivedbyherfromthelandlordoftheearlierpremisesthatthecouplewasoccupying.Thetenancyoftheearlierpremiseswasinthenameofthewife’sgrandmother.Thehusbandhadalsotakenawayhergoldornaments,(p.216) butatthattimehedidnotpurchaseanypremises.Thiscouldalsoberecognizedasthefinancialcontributionofthewife.
Whileupholdingthewoman’srightofresidence,thecourtcommentedthatthehusbanddidnotoccupytheaccommodationthoughhemaintainedhispossessionoveronefloorofthepremises.Whilehewasnotinneedofthesaidaccommodation,thewifehadnoalternateaccommodationandshehadcontributedsubstantiallytowardsacquiringthesepremises.Hence,theBombayHighCourtupheldtheorderandcommentedthattheorderawardingsheltertothewifebythefamilycourtcouldnotbeheldtobeperverseorunjustified.
![Page 105: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 105 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InSunitaShankarSalviv.ShankarLaxmanSalvi,theBombayHighCourtupheldthewoman’srighttothematrimonialhomewhichwasinthejointnamesoftheparties.Inthiscase,boththehusbandandthewifehadfiledfordivorcethroughseparateproceedings.Thepartiessettledtheissueofdivorceandfiledconsentterms,withdrawingallegationsagainsteachother,andadecreeofdivorce,bymutualconsentwasawarded.Thedisputeovertherightofresidenceinthematrimonialhomecontinued.Thewifecontendedthattheflatwasjointlyacquiredand,hence,bothhaveanequalright,title,andinterest,inthesaidflat.Shereliedupondocumentsadmittedbythehusbandinsupportofhercontention.Afterhearingtheparties,thefamilycourtconcludedthatthewife’snamewasaddedattherequestofthehusbandbutthewifehadnotpaidanyconsiderationorcostforacquisitionofthepremises.Hence,shehadnoright,title,andinterest,inthesaidflatandwasnotentitledtoclaimanyownership,orforthatmatter,anyright,title,orinterestinthesaidflat.Thefamilycourtheldthatthewife’spetitionclaiming50percentoftheshareintheflatwasdevoidofanysubstance.
Againstthisdecree,thewifeapproachedthehighcourt,whichoverruledthejudgmentofthefamilycourtandheldthatthoughtherewasnotenancyinthewife’sname,thepremiseswereforthebenefitofthefamily.Thewifewasalsooccupyingthepremisesalongwiththehusbandasamemberofthefamily.Thehusbandhadalsoadmitted,unambiguouslyandunequivocally,thatathisrequestthewife’snamewasaddedasco-ownerandtheadmissionwouldoperateasanestoppelagainsthim.Hewasprecludedfromcontendingcontrarytohisadmissionintheformofadmitteddocumentsoftitle.Fromtheveryfactthatthenameofthewifewasjoinedasoneoftheownersinthetitledeed,itwouldhavetobepresumedthatthewifewasentitledtoanequalshareinthesaidflat.Thecourtcommentedthatthefamilycourtwasnotjustifiedinrefusingtorecognizethewife’s50percentshareintheright,title,andinterest,intheflat.Inordertoexecutethisdecreethecourtgaveanoptionforeitherofthepartiestopurchase50percentshareoftheoppositeparty.Andifneitherofthemwasinapositiontomakeanofferofpurchase,thepremiseswouldbesoldandthesaleproceedswouldbedividedequallybetweenthem.
InMalaViswanathanv.P.B.Viswanathan,407thewifefiledanappealagainsttheorderoftheAdditionalDistrictJudge,Alipore,restrainingherentryintothematrimonialhome.TheCalcuttaHighCourtupheldtherightofthewifetoresideinthematrimonialhomeinthefollowingwords:
Whenaquestionrelatingtograntofinjunctionrestrainingoneofthespousesfromenteringintothematrimonialhousecomesbeforethecourt,thecourthastodealwiththesamewithutmostcareandcaution.Onceapersonbecomespartofthehousebyreasonofmarriage,herrighttoresideinmatrimonialhousecannotbedenied.Marriageconfersarighttoresideinthe(p.217) matrimonialhomeonbothpartiestothemarriageaswellastheiroffspring.Suchrightisajointandindivisiblecommonright.Suchrightcannotbetakenawayfromone,bytheother.Themarriagecarriesaliabilityandrighttomaintenanceofoneortheother.Onehalfofonecannotdenytheotherhalf’srightinthematrimonialhome.Maintenance
![Page 106: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 106 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
includesresidence.Thecourthastobeverycarefulindenyingsuchrightbygrantinginjunctionrestrainingthewifefromenteringintothematrimonialhome,ofwhichsheisapartof.Aninjunctioncanbegrantedonlywhenanexceptionalcaseismadeout.Itcanbegrantedsparinglyinacasewhereclearcaseforitismadeoutandsuchagrantwillnotresultinhelpingonetoousttheotherfromthematrimonialhome.
Further,thecourtcommentedthattheinterestofthewifeneedstobeprotectedwhilegrantingsuchorderstothehusband.
Inanotherimportantcase,MadhaviDudaniv.RameshDudani,408theBombayHighCourtrecognizedthewife’srighttoshelterupondivorceanddirectedthehusbandtopurchasearesidentialpremisescomprisingofahall,kitchen,andonebedroom,fortheexclusiveuseofthewifeandtwodaughters.ThehusbandhaddisputedthevalidityofmarriageonthegroundthatthewifewasnotaHindupriortohermarriageandhadnotconvertedtoHinduism.Hence,amarriagebetweenaHinduandanon-HinducouldnotbeconsideredasvalidundertheHinduMarriageAct.Thiscontentionwasoverruledbythehighcourt.
Whilethesehighcourtrulingsbroughtinsomerespitetowomen,therewasnocleardirectionfromtheSupremeCourtregardingthewife’srightofresidenceinthematrimonialhome.Butfinallyin2005,inB.P.AchalaAnandv.S.AppiReddy,409theSupremeCourtupheldthewife’srighttoresideinthematrimonialhome,evenagainstthelandlord.ThisrulingpronouncedbytheBenchcomprisingofR.C.LahotiCJ,G.P.MathurJ.andP.K.BalasubramanyanJ.incorporatedintotheIndianlawtheageolddictumoftheEnglishlaw,‘desertedwife’srightinequity’discussedearlier.
Thehusbandhaddesertedthewifeandhadleftthematrimonialhome,whichwasatenantedapartmentand,thereafter,hestoppedpayingtherentfortheapartment.Sincehefaultedinthepaymentofrentaldues,thelandlordinitiatedproceedingsforeviction.Sincethewifewouldbeaffectedbyanyorderofevictionandrenderedshelter-less,sheapproachedthecourttobeimpleadedasapartytotheproceedings.TheKarnatakaHighCourtgrantedherrequestanddirectedhertopaythedues.Thecaseproceededfurtherand,finally,itwasheldthatthelandlordcouldnotevictthetenantsfromthepartofthepremisesoccupiedbythewife.Againstthisdecision,thelandlordfiledanappealinthehighcourt.Thehighcourtruledinfavourofthelandlordandheldthattherewasnorelationshipoflandlordandtenantbetweenhimandthewomanconcerned.
TheappealagainstthisorderprovidedtheSupremeCourtanopportunitytoexpandthescopeofwomen’srightstotheirmatrimonialhome.Initsopeningcomments,therulingreiteratesthepowerofthejudiciallawmarkinginthefollowingwords,‘Unusualsituationsposingissuesforresolutionisanopportunityforinnovation.Law,asadministeredbycourts,transformsintojustice.Thelawdoesnotremainstatic.Itdoesnotoperateinavacuum.Associalnormsandvalueschanges,lawstoohavetobere-interpreted,andrecast.’ItalsoborrowedthefollowingquotefromLordDenning,‘Lawdoesnotstandstill;itmovescontinuously.Oncethisisrecognized,thenthetaskofa
![Page 107: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 107 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
judgeisputonahigherplain.Hemustconsciouslyseektomouldthelawsoastoservetheneedsofthetime.’
(p.218) SincetherewerenoIndianlegalprecedentswhichaddresstheissuedirectly,thecourtreferredtothelegalprinciplesunderEnglishlawandapprovinglyquotedLordDenning:‘Awifeisnolongerherhusband’schattel.Sheisbeginningtoberegardedbythelawasapartnerinallaffairswhicharetheircommonconcerns.Thus,thehusbandcannolongerturnthewifeoutofthematrimonialhome.Shehasasmuchrightashe,tostaythereeventhoughthehousedoesstandinhisname…Moreover,ithasbeenheldthatthewife’srightiseffective,notonlyasagainstherhusband,butalsoasagainstthelandlord.Thuswhereahusbandwhowasstatutorytenantofthematrimonialhome,desertedhiswifeandleftthehouse,thelandlordcouldnotturnthewifeoutsolongasshepaidtherentandperformedtheconditionsofthetenancy.’
ExpandingthescopeofSection27oftheHinduMarriageAct,whichempowersamatrimonialcourttomakerelevantordersregardingthejointpropertyoftheparties,410thecourtruledthatthissectioncanbeinvokedtopassordersregardingtheseparatepropertyofthepartiesoreventenantedpremises.
Thecourtempoweredthewifetointerveneinanyproceedingsfiledbythelandlordagainstherhusbandandcommentedthatadesertedwife,whohasbeenorisentitledtobeinoccupationofthematrimonialhome,isentitledtocontestthesuitforevictionfiledagainstherhusbandinhiscapacityastenant,ifheisnotinterestedincontestingthesame,asitwouldprejudicethedesertedwife,whoisresidinginthepremises.Itwasruledthatthedesertedwifeinoccupationofthetenantedpremisescannotbeplacedinapositionworsethanthatofasub-tenantcontestingaclaimforevictiononthegroundofsubletting.Havingbeendesertedbyherhusband,shecannotbedeprivedoftheroofoverherheadwherethehusbandhasconvenientlylefthertofacetheperilofeviction,attributabletodefaultorneglectbyhim.Thecourtheldthatthepositionofthewifeisakintothatofanheirofthehusband.Sincethehusbandhadlostinterestinprotectinghistenancyrights,thesamerightwoulddevolveuponthewifesolongasshecontinuesinoccupationofthepremises.
Thedecisionamountedtojudiciallawmaking.TheSupremeCourtclarifiedthatitwasusingitspowersoflawmakingunderArticle142oftheConstitution,whilerespondingtothedemandsofsocialandgenderjustice,andinordertodocompletejustice.Theprinciplesproclaimedinthisrulingwouldbebindinguntilasuitablelegislationisenacted.Thejudgmentispathbreakingandwhichsubstantiallyexpandedthescopeofwomen’srighttothematrimonialhome.Butthewomanherselfdidnotgainfromitas,pendingproceedings,shehadobtainedadecreeofdivorcebymutualconsentandtherewasnoagreementbetweenthepartiesregardingherrightofcontinuedresidenceinthetenantedpremisesaspartofthehusband’sobligationtomaintainher.
Therehavealsobeenimportantjudgmentsinrespectofwomen’srighttoresideinthematrimonialhome,asagainstthehusband,whichhaveprotectedthewifebyanousterorderagainstthehusband.Significantinthisrealmisanunreportedcasedecidedbythe
![Page 108: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 108 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
BombayHighCourtin1998(A.F.v.A.F.M.J.SuitNo.3264of1994dated14August1998(unreported)).Thepartiesbelongedtothelowereconomicbackground.Thereweresixchildrenofthemarriage,fivedaughtersandason.Theoneroomtenement(p.219) wasinitiallyinthenameofthehusband’smother,waslatertransferredtothehusband’sname.Thehusbandwhowasanalcoholicanddrugaddictthreatenedtotransferthetenancyandrenderthewifeandfamilyshelter-less.Whenhewasarrestedonaccountofsomepettycrime,thewifebailedhimoutonconditionthathetransfersthepremisestohername.Heconceded,andenteredintoanagreementtothiseffect.Thewifeandchildrenweresubjectedtoextremecrueltyandabuse.Thegirlswerelivingundertheconstantfearofsexualabusebyadrunkenfather.WhentheseriesofpolicecomplaintsandNGOinterventionsdidnotyieldanyresults,acasewasfiledforaninjunctionrestraininghisentryintothepremisesalongwithaprayerforjudicialseparationundertheIndianDivorceActintheHighCourtofBombay.Therightsofthewifeandchildrenwereprotected,boththroughaninitialad-interimandinterimorder,aswellasafinalorder.Theorderswereexpartesincethehusbandrefusedtoattendcourtproceedings.Andthewomanfacedextremedifficultiesinenforcingthisorder.Violenceandabusecontinued,but,finally,proceedingsunderSection498A(crueltytowives)resultedinhisconvictionforthreeyears,andthewifeandchildrencouldliveinpeace.Thiswasanextremecaseofphysicalandsexualabuse.Inordertodojusticeandprotecttherightsofbasicsurvivalanddignity,evenintheabsenceofastatutoryprovision,thecourtsareempoweredtopassprotectionorders,intheinterestofjustice,usingitsowninherentpowers.
ProtectionofMatrimonialResidenceUndertheDomesticViolenceAct,2005
Whiletherehavebeennostatutoryprovisionswithinthematrimonialstatutes,therecentlyenactedProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct,2005,providesindependentrelieftowomenbyprovidingforprotectiveinjunctionsagainstviolence,dispossessionfromthematrimonialhome,andalternateresidence.NowavictimofdomesticviolencecanseekprotectionundertheprovisionsofthisAct.TheActalsoprovidesthescopeforclaimingeconomicprotection,includingmaintenance.Thewidedefinitionofdomesticviolence,physical,mental,economical,andsexual,bringsunderitspurviewtheinvisibleviolencesufferedbyalargesectionofwomenandentitlesthemtoclaimprotectionfromthecourts.
WhiletheActdoesnotcreateanynewrightswhichwerenotavailabletowomenpriortothisenactmentthroughstatutoryorjudgemadelaws,itprovidesasinglewindowandsimpleproceduresforclaimingrightswhichwerescatteredunderdifferentstatutesandlegalprovisions.Thelitigationforumisthemagistrate’scourtwhichiseasilyaccessiblebywomen.Inaddition,simultaneously,theprovisionsofthisActcanbeinvokedinanyproceedingswhicharependinginanyothercivilorcriminalcourt.411
Thecampaignsbywomen’sgroups,priortotheenactmentandmediapublicityitreceivedaftertheenactment,hashelpedtobringaboutawarenessregardingthewoman’srighttoresideinthematrimonialhome.SincetheActgivesastatutoryrecognitiontotheprinciplewhichwasadvancedthroughjudgemadelaws,manymore
![Page 109: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 109 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
womenarestakingtheirclaimstoresidenceinthematrimonialhomeandforprotectionordersrestrainingthehusbandsfromdispossessingthemandcausinganyharmtothem.AjudgecalledupontoproviderelieftoawomanunderthenewActisboundbynotjusttheprovisionsoftheAct,buttheideologicalframeworkwhichunderscorestheenactmentthatahusbandisboundtoprovidehiswifearoofoverherhead,andthatshehasarighttoliveinthathousewithoutthefearofviolence.
(p.220) Afterthisenactment,itisnolongerpossibletoholdthatthematrimonialhomeistheexclusivedomainofthehusband,andthewomanhasnorighttoresideinitagainstherhusband’swishes.Evenifthewomanisnotresidinginthepremises,itispossibleforhertoobtainanorderofre-entryalongwithaprotectionorder,residenceorder,andanorderofmaintenanceforherselfandherchildren.
TheActwidensthescopeofprotectionagainstviolencebeyondthecategoryofwivesandextendsitnotonlytomothers,daughters,andsisters,buteventowomenininformalrelationships.Agedwomen,unmarriedgirls,andwidowed/divorcedsisters,cannowseekprotectionfromtheirrelativesunderthisAct.Anentiregamutofwomen,whosemarriagesaresuspectduetosomelegaldefectonthegroundthatessentialceremonieswerenotperformedorthatthemanorthewomanhasanearliersubsistingmarriage,areabletoseekreliefunderthisAct.Theinvalidityofamarriagecannolongerbeusedasdefencebythemantodispossessthewoman,ordenyhermaintenance.412
InVandanav.TSrikanth,413theMadrasHighCourtprovidedabroadinterpretationtothenotionsof‘sharedhousehold’and‘domesticrelationship’undertheAct,asdefinedunderSection2(s)andSection2(f),respectively.Inthiscase,thehusbandhadcontestedtherightoftheaggrievedwifetoresideinthesharedhouseholdunderSection17ofthePWDVAbecausethepartieshadnotlivedtogetherinthesharedhouseholdforevenasingledayaftertheirmarriage.Thehusbanddisputedtheveryfactofmarriageitself.Butthecourt,upholdingtherightoftheaggrievedwifetoresideunderSection17,heldthatthewifehasadejurerighttoliveinthesharedhouseholdbecauseofherstatusasawifeinthedomesticrelationship.Thisrulingawardedjudicialrecognitiontotheconceptthatthecontractofmarriageencompasseswithinit,arightofresidence.
InIndia,mostcouples,aftermarriage,liveinajointhousehold,sharedwiththehusband’sparentsandsiblings.Thequestionthathassurfacedinjudicialdiscourseiswhethersuchdwellingscanbeconstruedasthe‘matrimonialhome’or‘sharedhousehold’ofthewoman,andwhethersheisentitledtoobtainanorderofinjunctionrestrainingthehusbandandhisfamilymembersfromdispossessingher.Thishasbecomeahighlycontestedissuewhiledeterminingtherightsofresidenceofwomeninsuchhouseholds.Whilethereissomerecognitionoftherightofresidenceagainstthehusband,especiallyifthewifeisinpossessionofthepremises,therewasnorecognitionoftherightofresidenceagainstthehusband’sfamilymemberswherethecoupleislivingwithinajointfamilyunit.Itwashopedthattheenactmentwouldstrengthenthisrightandbroadenitsscope.
Ratherunfortunately,thefirstrulingoftheSupremeCourtpronouncedin2007,inS.R.
![Page 110: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 110 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Batrav.TarunaBatra,414hasconstrainedthescopeofthisstipulationandhasheldthatthesharedhouseholdundertheActconstitutesonlythepremisesownedbythehusbandorthepremiseswhereheholdsanHUFinterestinthefamilyproperty.TheSupremeCourt,whileexaminingthedefinitionofthesharedhouseholdunderPWDVA,heldthatasharedhouseholdindicatesahousebelongingtoortakenonrentbythehusband,orahousewhichbelongstothejointfamilyofwhichthehusbandisamember.Sincethehousebelongedtothemother-in-law,thedaughter-in-lawcouldnotclaimanyrightsinthesaidpremises.Further,itwasheldthattheclaimforalternativeaccommodationcanonlybemadeagainstthehusbandandnotagainstthein-laws,orotherrelatives.Thismightprovedetrimentaltotherightsofwomenlivinginjointfamilyhouseholdsownedbytheparents-in-lawinwhichthehusbandhimselfhasnolegalrighttoresidebywayoftitleorinterest.
Subsequently,ascanbepredicted,thispleawastakenbyseveralhusbandstovacatetheinitialprotectionorderspassedbylowercourts.Varioushighcourts,followingthedecisionoftheSupremeCourt,struckdowntheordersgrantingprotectiontowomenintheirmatrimonialhomeandwomenweredeprivedoftheirrightsofresidinginjointfamilyhouseholds.
Forinstance,inHemaxiAtulJoshiv.MuktabenKarsandasJoshi,415theBombayHighCourt,relyingupontheaboveruling,heldthatsharedhouseholdindicatesthehousebelongingtoortakenonrentbythehusband,orthehousewhichbelongstothejointfamilyofwhichthehusbandisamember.Thehusbandhadfiledapetitionfordivorceandthewifehadfiledacorrespondingpetitiontoprotectherrighttoresideinthematrimonialhome,andsoughtaninjunctionagainstherdispossession.Priortofilingofproceedingsfordivorce,thepartieshadshiftedoutofthejointfamilyhouseholdintoaseparateapartment.Thewifestakedherclaimofresidenceinthepremisesownedbyhermother-in-lawandnotagainstherhusband.Thecourtrejectedherclaimonthegroundthatmerelybecausethewifestayedinthehouseofhermother-in-lawalongwithherhusbandforsometime,shedidnotaccruealegalrightofresidenceinthesaidpremises.Itwasnotthepropertyinwhichthehusbandhadaright.Therightisavailabletothewifeonlyagainstherhusbandandnotagainstanyothermemberofhisfamily.
AbhaArorav.AngelaSharma416isanothersimilarcaseofthewifeclaimingarightofresidenceagainsthermother-in-law,relyinguponthenotionofasharedhousehold.Themother-in-lawhadinitiatedproceedingstorestraintheentryofthedaughter–in-lawintothepremisesownedbyher.Thedaughter-in-lawfailedtoobtainacounterinjunctioninherfavourforherre-entry.Subsequently,themother-in-lawsoldthepremisesandmadeanapplicationtothecourtforpermissiontowithdrawtheproceedingsfiledbyher.Thedaughter-in-lawopposedthisonthegroundthatherrightsunderPWDVAwouldbedefeatedifthemother-in-lawisallowedtowithdrawhersuit.Butthehighcourtrejectedthispleaandheldthatsincethepropertyisownedby(p.221) themother-in-law,thedaughter-in-lawcannotclaimtherightofresidence,asthesameisnotasharedhouseholdundertheprovisionsofPWDVA.Thehighcourtcommentedthatthedaughter-in-lawwasnotresidinginthesuitpropertybutwasresidingandworkinginthe
![Page 111: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 111 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
UK,andwasearningasubstantialincome.Theproceedingsfiledbyherweredismissedfordefault,asshedidnotfollowupthesuit.Hence,therewasnoreasonforpreventingthemother-in-lawfromwithdrawinghersuitandcompellinghertoproceedwithit.
InNeetuMittalv.KantaMittal,417thewifefiledproceedingsagainstherin-lawsforanorderofpermanentinjunctionunderOrder39,Rule1and2ofCPC,andalsoinvokedtherelevantprovisionsforherrighttoresidence(p.222) underPWDVA.Whilethewifeadmittedthatshehadbeenlivingseparatelywithherhusband,shepleadedthatthisaccommodationisnotadequate.Herrelationshipwiththein-lawswasnotcordialandthecouplewerelivingseparatelyduetothesettlementarrivedat,atthepolicestation,betweentheparties.Hence,itwasheldthatherstayingwiththein-lawswouldbedetrimentaltotheirhealthandinterest,andtheirrighttolivewithdignity.Thetrialcourtorderwasaffirmedbythehighcourt.RelyingupontheBatracase,thecourtcommentedthatthewife’sclaimofresidenceisonlyagainstherhusbandandnotagainstherin-laws.
ThefactsofM.Nirmalav.Dr.GandlaBalakotaiah,418areslightlydifferent.Here,thewifehadfiledanapplicationunderOrder39readwithSection151ofCPCseekinganinjunctionagainstherhusbandfromdispossessingher.ShealsoinvokedSection19(f)ofPWDVA.Shecontendedthatthepropertywaspurchasedin1997outofherownandherfamily’sfunds,butstoodinthenameofherhusband.Whilesheresidedinthepremises,thehusbandhadleftthehomeandwasnowtryingtodispossessher.Thehusbanddeniedthiscontentionandpleadedthatthepremiseswerepurchasedfromhisownfundsandthroughabankloanandrelieduponrelevantdocumentstoprovehiscase.Healsostatedthatherecognizedtherightofthewifeforshelterandwasreadytopayforanalternativeaccommodation.Thetrialcourtdismissedthewife’spetition,butdirectedthehusbandtopayasumofRs3,500permonthtowardsrent.ThewifechallengedthisorderinthehighcourtonthegroundthatshewasentitledtothepossessionofthematrimonialhouseasperSection19oftheDomesticViolenceAct.Thehighcourtupheldtheorderofthefamilycourtonthegroundthatshecouldnotprovehercontributiontowardsthepurchaseofthepremises.
Ascanbeseen,withinafewyearsofthenewenactmentaconstrainedscopeoftheprovisionofthesharedhouseholdisbeginningtoemerge,whichwoulddrasticallycurtailtherightsofwomen.Thishasbecomearoutineploytodeprivewomenoftheirrightofresidence.Insomecases,thecourtshaveseenthroughthesestrategiesandhavedeclinedtoapplytheratiooftheBatracase,basedonfactsandcircumstancesoftheparticularcase.
InNidhiKumarGandhiv.TheState,419thewifehadfiledforre-entryintothematrimonialhomefromwheresheandherminordaughterhadbeendispossessed.Thehusbandresistedherclaimbystatingthatthepremisesbelongedtohisfatherandthathewasnotresidinginthesaidpremises.Thewifecontendedthatheshiftedhisresidenceonlyaftershehadinitiatedproceedingsagainsthim.Inviewofthis,interimorderswerepassedinherfavour.Thehusbandchallengedtheorders,relyingupontheBatracaseandpleadedthatthepremiseswereneitherownednorrentedbyhim,anditwasnotthejointfamilypropertyand,thus,couldnotbeconstruedasasharedhousehold.Inviewof
![Page 112: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 112 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
this,thesessionscourtvariedtheresidentialorderpassedbythemagistrate’scourt.Inappeal,theDelhiHighCourtrestoredtheordersofthemagistrate’scourtandobservedthatitwasprematureonthepartoftheSessionsJudgetoapplytheratiooftheBatracasewithoutanyevidencehavingbeenledtodeterminewhether,infact,thehusband’sfatherownedthepremisesandwhetherthehusbandhadnorighttolivethere.Thehighcourtcommentedthatitisinconceivablehowataninterlocutorystage,inviewofthemandateundertheActtoprovideurgentrelief,afinaldeterminationonthis(p.223)aspectcouldbemade.Further,itwasheldthattherightsofthehusband’sfamilyarenotaffectedbytheorderofrestorationandthewife’soccupationofthepremises.
InP.BabuVenkatesh,KandayammalandPadmavathiv.Rani,420thewifehadbeenbeatenandthrownoutofthematrimonialhomeatmidnight.Sheapproachedthecourtsforanurgentresidenceorderagainstherhusbandandin-laws.Thetrialcourt,takingintoconsiderationtheurgencyofthecase,passedad-interimreliefsinherfavourpermittinghertore-enterthematrimonialhome.Sincethein-lawshadlockedthehouse,shewaspermittedtobreakopenthelocksandenterthepremises.Thehusbandandin-lawsfiledanappealandsubmittedthatthedivorcepetitionfiledbyhimispending.Further,thehousewasinthenameofhisfatherandreferredtotheBatracasethatawifecannotclaimfromherin-laws.Thewife,however,contendedthathehadalienatedthehouseinthenameofhisfatherduringthependencyofthecase.Thecourtcommentedthatifthecontentionofthehusbandisacceptedtheneveryhusbandwillresorttotransferringhispropertyinfavourofsomeoneelsewhenamatrimonialdisputearises,andthenpleadthatthepremisesisnotthesharedhousehold,and,therefore,thewifeisnotentitledtoseekarightofresidence.Thecourtfurtherobservedthatthependencyofthedivorcepetitionhasnothingtodowiththepresentapplication.Whileupholdingtheordertobreakopenthelocks,thecourtcommentedthatthewifecannotbemadetowaitinthestreetandthathusbandswillpreventthewivesfromreapingthebenefitsoftheorderbysimplylockingthepremisesandwalkingaway.
InRazzakKhanv.ShahnazKhan,421itwasthewoman’ssecondmarriageand,subsequently,therewasadivorce.Thereafter,shefiledforresidentialordersunderSection18to20ofPWDVA.Thewifecontendedthatshelivedwithherhusbandandhistwobrothersintheirancestralhouse.Thelowercourtgrantedhertheprotectionorderandmaintenanceforherandtheminorson,thesessionscourtmodifiedthereliefanddirectedtheProtectionOfficertoprovidealternativeaccommodationtoherintheancestralhouseofherhusbandandevengrantedmaintenancetothefosterson.Itwasherhusband’scontentionthatshewasworkingasaclerkandcomfortablylivinginherparentalhouse,whilehewasamechanicandwasnotgettingregularsalaryandwasaheartpatient,and,further,thatafterdivorceitisnotproperforhertoliveintheancestralhouse.Thehighcourtafterperusingthedefinitionsofaggrievedwoman,domesticrelationship,andsharedhousehold,concludedthatevenadivorcedwomanisentitledtothesereliefsundertheAct,hence,thefactthatshewasadivorcedMuslimwomanandherstayingatherhusband’splaceisharamcannotbeaccepted,andupheldtheordersofthelowercourtsinherfavour.
![Page 113: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 113 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InShammiNagpalv.SudhirNagpal,DirectorofHotelTaj,President,IndianHotelsCompanyLtd.andCommissionerofPolice,422thewifehadfiledforaninjunctionagainstthehusbandandhiscompanyforrestrainingthemfromcreatinganythirdpartyrightsinrespectofthesuitpremisesandtohandoverandrestorevacantandpeacefulpossessiontoher.Shecontendedthatthesuitpremiseswerehermatrimonial(p.224)homewhichhadbeenallottedtoherhusbandbyhiscompany.Whileshehadgoneabroadforashortvisit,thehusband,incollusionwithhiscompany,terminatedtheleaseandtookawayallherbelongings.Shewasinformedaboutitthroughemailafteraday.WhenshereturnedtoMumbai,shecouldnotenterthesuitpremisesasthelockshadbeenchanged.
Thecourtobservedthatthefamilymemberscannotclaimexclusivepossessionorrightintheresidentialpremisesallottedbythecompanyasaconditionofservice.However,thehusband’sactofsurrenderingthesuitpremisestohisemployer,uponterminationoftheserviceoccupancyagreementinherabsence,wasnotbonafideanddeservedtobecondemned.Thecompanyofferedtoallowhertooccupythepremisesforafurtherperiodofsixmonthsuntilshecouldmakeherownalternatearrangements.
Thecasesdiscussedaboverevealthattherightofresidenceinpremisesownedbyathirdparty(includingthein-laws)isnotunconditional,aswasinitiallyprojectedinthemediasoonaftertheenactment.Thecourtswillexaminetherightonacasetocasebasis.Theconductofthepartiesconcernedisrelevantfordeterminingtherights.Also,theordersaresummaryinnatureandthereforetemporary.Thefinaldeterminationoftherightswillhappeninthecourseofcivilproceedings.
NotionofMatrimonialPropertyandRulesforitsDivision
HistoricalOriginsoftheDoctrineofPropertyDivision
Aswehaveobserved,themajorstruggleforwomeninEnglandhadbeentoacquiretherighttoownpropertyduringthesubsistenceoftheirmarriageandtofightthelegalprovisionwhichmergedtheirpropertywiththatoftheirhusbands.Hence,undertheEnglishcommonlawtradition,propertyofthespousesremainedseparateandmarriagedidnotcreateanyrightsinthepropertyoftheotherspouse.Incontrast,theEuropeanfamilylawsorthecontinentallegalsystemadoptedthenotionofcommunityofproperty.Underthisdoctrine,marriageitselfalterstherulesofpropertyownershipandmaintenance,andentitlesboththespousesrightsandinterestsineachother’sproperty.Allpropertyacquiredduringthesubsistenceofmarriagebyeitherofthespousesorjointlybythem,ispooledintoacommunityofpropertyoverwhichbothspousesacquireequalinterestsandrightsofcontrol.Upondivorce,thispropertybecomesdivisiblebetweenthespousesonanequalbasis.Underthelegalpremiseofdifferedcommunityofpropertythepropertyremainstheseparatepropertyofspousesduringthesubsistenceofmarriageandisthrownintoacommonpoolonlyatthetimeofdivorce,whenitbecomesdivisible.
Undertheseparatepropertyregime,themarriagehasnoimpactuponthetitleorrightsovertheproperty,andthepropertyandassetsaregovernedbythegeneralrulesof
![Page 114: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 114 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
propertylaws.Hence,thepropertydoesnotbecomedivisibleatthetimeofdivorce.Thewoman’sfinancialclaimisconfinedonlytomaintenanceand,morerecently,toarightofresidenceinthedwellinghouse.
WhilethePortuguese(andotherEuropeanpowerssuchastheFrench,theDutch,etc.)introducedthecontinentalsystemintheircolonies,theBritishintroducedthecommonlawsystem.Hence,thefamilylawsofGoa,whicharebasedonthePortuguesefamilylaw,adoptedthesystemofcommunityofproperty,whereasBritishIndiaadoptedtheEnglishtraditionofseparateproperty.Thissystemcontinuedinthepost-Independenceperiod.ThenotionofcommunityofpropertyhasnotbeenintroducedintotheIndianfamilylawsystem.
(p.225) SomestatesintheUnitedStatesandmostprovincesofCanada,commonwealthcountriessuchasAustralia,NewZealand,Malaysia,Singapore,etc.,followedtheEnglishcommonlawtraditionsofseparateproperty,butinthe1970s,graduallyshiftedtothesystemofcommunityofproperty.
Theintroductionofvariousstatutoryprovisionsforeasydivorcescreatedsevereeconomichardshipstowomenastheylostthebargainingpowerfornegotiatingsettlements.Earlier,infaultbaseddivorces,womencoulddefendthefrivolouslitigationinitiatedbytheirhusbandsasthehusbandsweremandatedtoprovetheallegations,andiftheyfailed,theirpetitionwaslikelytobedismissed.Inthiscontextthehusbandwasreadytobargaininordertoobtainthewife’sconsentfordivorceand,duringthesenegotiation,womencouldstrikesomeeconomicbargainsasdivorcesettlements.Withtheintroductionofno-faultdivorce,thispowerwastakenoutofwomen’sreachasthehusbandsdidnothavetoproveanymatrimonialfault,butcouldmerelypleadbreakdownofmaritalrelations.Thiscreatedagreatdealofhardshiptowomenintermsoftheirrightofresidenceandtherighttomatrimonialassets.
Researchstudiesconfirmedthatdivorcehasamajordetrimentaleffectonthestandardoflivingofwomen.Thereasonforthedifferentialisprimarilythattheearningcapacityofdivorcedwomenislessthanthatofmen––theyaremorelikelytohaveinterruptedtheircareerstohavechildrenand,hence,earnloweramountsthanmen,andtheyarelesslikelytobeabletoresume(orremainin)full-timeemploymenttomakeuptheshortfallwhentheirmarriagebreaksdown.Evenaftertheirchildrenhavegrownup,theyarelikelytoremainlesswelloffbecausetheyareunabletobuildupsufficientfundsfortheirretirement.Hence,fromthe1970s,greatersignificanceisbeingattachedtothefinancialconsequencesofdivorceuponwomenandchildren.
Thishasledtotheintroductionofthenotionofdivisionofpropertyupondivorcetoensurejusticeandequitytowomenatthetimeofdivorce.Thisconcepthasbeenintroducedwithinthefamilylawsofseveralcountries,whichhaveadoptedvariousmodelsofpropertydistribution.Whilesomerelyuponthepremiseofequality,othersfunctionfromthepremiseofdependency.Thefirstquestionwhichariseswhileadjudicatingoverpropertydisputesiswhatconstitutesmatrimonialproperty,andthesecondandequallyimportantquestionistheruleswhichgovernthedivision.Thissection
![Page 115: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 115 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
addressesthesetwoconcerns.
Thefourbasicconceptswhichareinvokedwhileprescribingtherulesfordivisionofpropertyatdivorcearetitle,fault,need,andcontribution.Titleindicateslegalownershipandthisconceptfavouredthehusbandasheusuallyheldthetitletothepropertyaccruedduringthemarriage.Thenotionofmatrimonialfaultwasusedtodenywomenaccusedofcrueltyoradulterytheirentitlements.Therightofmaintenance,alumpsumsettlement,ortherighttoresideinthematrimonialhomewasbasedonthewoman’sdependentstatuswithinmarriageduetowhichtheneedforeconomicsupportwaslocated.Thetheoryofcontributionwasthelatest,whichwasevolvedtoawardrecognitiontothenon-monitorycontributionofwomentothehouseholdwithinthecontextofapartnershipofequality.WhiletitlehasceasedtobeadeterminativefactorundermostmatrimoniallawsinWesterncountries,needandtoalesserextent,faultarestillrelevantinevolvingaconceptualframeworkforthecreationandimplementationofvariousdistributionfactors.Thesequencingofthefourcategoriesisoftenusedtosuggestaprogressionfromthesimplecommonlawemphasisontitletothemore(p.226) complexunderstandingofthefunctionandpurposeofthedistributionsystem.
DevelopmentoftheDoctrineofDistributionofMatrimonialPropertyinVariousCountries
EnglandandWalesAftertheintroductionoftheDivorceReformAct,1969,whichintroducedthebreakdowntheory,therewasafearthatmanyinnocentwives,divorcedagainsttheirwill,wouldbeleftwithinadequatefinancialprovisions.ThisledtothepassingoftheMatrimonialProceedingsandPropertyAct,1970,whichwasre-enactedasPartIIoftheMatrimonialCausesAct,1973.
The1973ActwasamendedbytheMatrimonialHomesandPropertyAct,1981,whichgavethedivorcecourtstheexpressstatutorypowertoorderthesaleofanyofthespouses’property.Moreimportantly,theMatrimonialandFamilyProceedingsAct,1984,extendedthecourt’spowersbyenablingittoimposeacleanbreak(thatis,aonce-and-for-allsettlementbetweenthespouseswithnocontinuingfinancialties)uponaspouse,andalteredthewaythepowerstobeexercised.Twoofthemostimportantchangeswere:
1)Torequirethecourt,whendecidingwhatordersshouldbemade,togivefirstconsiderationtothewelfare,whilstaminor,ofanychildofthefamilyunder18;and,2)Toimposeadutyuponthecourttoconsiderwhetheritisappropriatetoexerciseitspowersthatthefinancialobligationsofeachpartyterminateimmediately,orassoonaspossible.
The1984Actalsoendedtheobligationofthecourttoattempttoplacethepartiesinthepositionthattheywouldhavebeen,hadthemarriagenotbrokendown.Subsequently,thePensionsAct,1995,extendedthecourt’spowerstoenableittomakeordersdirectingthatallorpartofanylumpsumorpensionarisingonaspouse’sretirementbe
![Page 116: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 116 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
paidtotheotherspouse(LoweandDouglas1998:778–9).
TheMatrimonialCausesAct,1973,wasfurtheramendedbytheFamilyLawAct,1996,principallytoreflectthechangestothesubstantivelawofdivorce,andthenewpolicythattheparties’financialandotherarrangementsforthefuturearetobesettledbeforeamarriageisbroughttoanend,ratherthanthereafter.
Thematrimonialcourtsnowhavethestatutorypowertomakeanorderagainsteitherspousewithrespecttoanyoneormoreofthefollowingmatters:
1.Unsecuredperiodicalpaymentstotheotherspouse;2.Securedperiodicalpaymentstotheotherspouse;3.Lumpsumpaymentstotheotherspouse;4.Unsecuredperiodicalpaymentsforanychildofthefamily;5.Securedperiodicalpaymentsforanychildofthefamily;6.Alumpsumpaymentforanychildofthefamily;7.Transferofpropertytotheotherspouseorforthebenefitofanychildofthefamily;8.Settlementofpropertyforthebenefitoftheotherspouseoranychildofthefamily;9.Variationofanymarriagesettlement.
Orderswithinthescopeofpoints1–6arecollectivelyknownasfinancialprovisionordersandthosewithinthescopeofpoints7–9,aspropertyadjustmentorders(LoweandDouglas1998:779–80).
Whereacourtmakesasecuredperiodicalpaymentsorder,alumpsumorder,orapropertytransferorder,itcanfurtherorderasaleofpropertybelongingtoeitherorbothspouses.After1996,thecourtsalsoacquiredthepowertomakefinancialprovisionorders(periodicalpaymentsandlumpsum)directingthatashareofaspouse’s(p.227)pensionbeearmarkedandpaidtotheotheronretirement.
TheFamilyLawAct,1996,emphasizesonmediationasaprocessbywhichthepartiesmightreachagreementonfinancialandotherdisputesarisingonmarriagebreakdown.Anintegralpartofthenewproceduresistheholdingofanearlyfinancialdisputeresolution(FDR)appointmentwherethespouses,inthepresenceofadistrictjudge,willbeencouragedtoaddresstheoutstandingissuesbetweenthemwithaviewtoarrivingatasettlement.Negotiatedsettlementsmayworktoreducehostilityandacrimonybetweentheparties.Further,itmakessenseforthepartiestoreachanagreementtosavethecostsofafullcourttrial,whichcanbeextremelysteep(LoweandDouglas1998:801–2).
Whilethisdiscussion,inanutshell,summarizesthepositionofstatutorylaw,thefollowinglandmarkcasesreflecthowthelawofdivisionofpropertyhasprogressedinEngland.
Thenotionofdivisionofpropertywasintroducedinaverytentativemannerduringthe
![Page 117: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 117 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
1970sinWachtelv.Wachtel,423whenLordDenningintroducedtheonethirdruleofpropertydistributionasareasonablestartingpoint.Herefrainedfromapplyingtheruleofequaldistributiononthebasisthatitmaybeappropriateinfuture,butisnotappropriateinthepresentcase.Althoughhedidnotstatethatthisruleshouldbeapresumptioninsubsequentcases,courtsroutinelyappliedthisprincipleinclaimsbywivesfordivisionofmatrimonialproperty.
In1982,inPrestonv.Preston,424theconceptofneedwasintroducedanditwasheldthatanappropriateapproachwouldbetolookatthewife’sreasonablerequirementsandattempttoascertainwhatcapitalsumshewouldneedtoachieveacleanbreakandlivecomfortablyfortherestofherlife.ThisgaverisetotheDuxburycalculation,namedafterasubsequentcaseDuxburyv.Duxbury,425whichwasessentiallyanactuarialcalculationmadeonthebasisofthewife’sreasonablerequirements,normallycalculatedonhermonthlyexpenseswithreferencetoherage.Basedonthesefactors,acapitalsum,whichwasdeemedasappropriate,wouldbeorderedtobepaidtothewifebywayofacleanbreak.TheDuxburycalculationwassuchthatthecapitalwouldslowlydiminishuntiltheprojectedendofthewife’slifewhenshewouldbeleftwithnocapital.
Thisapproachwascriticizedforbeingdiscriminatoryagainstwomen.ButcourtscontinuedtoapplythisprincipleanditwastakentoanextremeinThyssen-Bornemiszav.Thyssen-Bornemisza.426Thiscaseintroducedthemillionaire’sdefence,whichwasessentiallythatonthebasisthatthecourtwouldadjudicateonthewife’sreasonablerequirements,therewouldbenoneedtomakeathoroughinvestigationintothehusband’sassetsashewassowealthythathecouldaffordwhateverthewife’sreasonableneedswereassessedat.
InthecaseofGojkovicv.Gojkovic,427wheretherehadbeenalongcohabitationbutarelativelyshortmarriageandnochildren,itwasconsideredrelevanttoexaminewhetherthewifehadmadeasubstantialcontributiontothebusiness.Itwasahotelbusiness,anditwasdeemedthatthewife’sreasonablerequirementswouldincludethetransferorpurchaseofahotelforhertorun.Hence,shewasawardedagreaterproportionofthetotalmaritalassets,inexcessof(p.228) merelyherreasonablerequirementsbecauseshehadcontributedfinanciallytothemarriage.
Thisapproachseemedtodiscriminateagainstthewifeandmother,whohadnotdirectlycontributedtothefinancialwell-beingofthefamily.Anotherproblemwiththisapproachwastheratherillogicalresultthatifawifewasolderherneedswouldbeless,thus,alongmarriagewouldaffordherasmallerproportionoftheassets.Atthesametime,asthehusband’sneedswerenotassessed,hewouldbeleftwiththelion’sshare,eventhoughhewasofacomparableagetothewife.
TheprincipleofPrestonwasfollowedintheUKuntiltheHouseofLordsdecisionin2000inWhitev.White,428whichestablishedequalityasareasonablestartingpointinthedivisionofmatrimonialassets.ItwasheldthatthefactorssetoutunderSection25oftheMatrimonialCausesAct,1973,shouldbemeasuredagainstayardstickofequality.Inthiscase,thewifereceivedslightlyoverone-fifthofthetotalmatrimonialassets.Onappeal,
![Page 118: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 118 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
theCourtofAppealincreasedtheamounttoapproximatelytwo-fifthsofthetotalassets.Thewifewasapartner,butitwasheldthatshewasentitledtomorethanherpartnershipshareinrecognitionofthecontributionshehadmadetothefamilyaswifeandmother,overandaboveherpartnershiproleinthefarmingbusiness.TheHouseofLordsupheldthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealandgaveadetailedanalysisinrelationtoequality,thefinancialresources,andfinancialneedsoftheparties,andtheDuxburyparadoxdiscussedearlier.Alsoconsideredwastheparties’wishtoleavemoneytotheirchildren,whichwasdeemedtobeanaturalparentalwishinacasewhereresourcesexceedthefinancialneeds.Itwasheldthatajudgeisentitledtohaveinmindthewishesofawifethatherawardshouldnotbeconfinedtoanaccommodationandadiminishingfundofcapital,earmarkedforlivingexpenses,whichwouldleavenothingforhertopassontoherchildren.Themostimportantaspectofthisdecisionwasthenowmuch-usedstatementcoinedbyLordNicholls,thatajudge‘…wouldalwaysbewelladvisedtocheckhistentativeviewsagainsttheyardstickofequality.Asageneralguide,equalityshouldbedepartedfromonlyif,andtotheextentthat,thereisagoodreasonfordoingso.Theneedtoconsiderandarticulatereasonsfordepartingfromequalitywouldhelpthepartiesandthecourttofocusontheneedtoensuretheabsenceofdiscrimination.’
Threelandmarkcases,whichcameupinsubsequentyears,arediscussedheretoascertainthelegalprincipleswhichthecourtsnowadoptwhiledecidingtheissueofdivisionofproperty,429
Inthefirstcase,Millerv.Miller,itwasashortmarriageofthreeyearswithsignificantassetswhichwereacquiredduringthecourseofthemarriage.Thehusbandarguedthatsincethedurationofmarriagewasshort,thewife’sawardshouldbeless.Thewifearguedthatshehadgivenupheremploymentandadjustedherlifestyleaccordingtothestandardofthemarriageand,therefore,herawardshouldbesubstantial.Itwasheldthatthewifewasentitledtosomeshareoftheassets,includingtheconsiderableincreaseinthehusband’swealthduringthemarriage.Hadtheyardstickofequalitybeenappliedtoalltheassetswhichaccruedduringthemarriage,thewifewouldhavereceivedsubstantiallymore.However,sincethe(p.229) substantialgrowthwasattributedtocontactsandcapacitiesthehusbandbroughttothemarriageandsincetheassetswerebusinessassets,generatedsolelybythehusbandduringashortmarriage,thenormofequalitywassidestepped.Adistinctionwasmadebetweenmatrimonialandnon-matrimonialpropertyincasesofmarriagesofshortduration.
InMacFarlanev.MacFarlane,themarriagewasofsixteenyearsandtherewerethreechildren.Bothpartieswerequalifiedprofessionalsand,untilshortlybeforethebirthoftheirsecondchild,earnedsimilarincomes.Thereafter,thewiferemainedathometocareforthechildrenwhilethehusbandcontinuedaprofessionalcareerwithasalaryincreasingconsiderablyyearafteryear.Inthissituation,thefamilyhadinsufficientcapitaltoachieveacleanbreak,butthehusband’sincomewassubstantiallymorethantheparties’budgetedhouseholdexpenditure.Itwasheldthatthewifeshouldbeentitledtoashareofthefutureearningswhichhadbeenmadepossiblebyherpastcontributiontothehusband’scareer.Thecourtfurtherheldthat,inexceptionalcases,periodical
![Page 119: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 119 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
paymentsshouldbeusedbytherecipienttoaccumulatecapital,particularlyinviewoftheinabilityofthepartiestosatisfythewife’sdemandforacleanbreak.Itwasheldthatthewife,havinggivenupherownhighlypaidcareerforthefamily,wasnotonlyentitledtoagenerousincomeprovision,includingsumswhichwouldenablehertoprovideforherownoldage.Shewasalsoentitledtoashareintheverylargesurplusonboththeprinciplesofsharingandcompensation.Thiswastocontinueforherlifetime,andtheburdenwasonthehusbandtojustifyareductionifhewishedtomakeanapplicationtothiseffectinthefuture.
Thethirdcase,Charmanv.Charman,concernedalongmarriageoftwenty-eightyearsandthereweretwoadultchildren.Thematrimonialassetswerebuiltupduringthecourseofthemarriage,fromnothingtoover£130million.Thehusbandarguedthathehadmadeaspecialcontribution,whichwasconcededbythewifewhosought45percentofthematrimonialassets.Thewifewasawarded36.5percentoftheassets(£48million).Thejudgebasedhisdeparturefromequality,bothonthespecialcontributionbythehusbandandonthegreaterrisksinherentontheassetsretainedbyhim.TheHouseofLordsreliedupontherulingsinMillerandMacFarlane.Thethreemainprincipleswhichwererelieduponinthiscasewere:need(generouslyinterpreted),compensation,andsharing.
Itwasheldthattheyardstickofequalityofdivision,identifiedbytheHouseofLordsinWhite,hadfilledthevacuum,whichhadarisenfromabandonmentofthecriteriaofreasonablerequirements,butithadnowdevelopedintotheequalsharingprinciple.Underthis,propertyshouldbesharedinequalproportionsunlesstherewasagoodreasontodepartfromsuchproportions.
ItwasfurtherheldthateachofthethreedistributiveprinciplesidentifiedbytheHouseofLordsinMillercouldbederivedfromSection25oftheMCA:
1.Theprincipleofneedrequiredconsiderationofthefinancialneeds,obligations,andresponsibilitiesoftheparties,thestandardoflivingenjoyedbythefamily,theageoftheparties,andanyphysicalormentaldisabilityofeitherspouse;2.Theprincipleofcompensationrelatedtoprospectivefinancialdisadvantagewhichsomepartiesfacedupondivorceasaresultofdecisionstakenforthebenefitofthefamilyduringthemarriage;and,3.Theprincipleofsharingwasdictatedbyreferencetothecontributionsofeachpartytothewelfareofthefamily,tothelengthofthe(p.230) marriageand,inanexceptionalcase,totheconductoftheparty.
LordNichollssuggestedthepossibilityof‘anincreasedrecognitionthatbybeingathomeandhavingandlookingafteryoungchildren,awifemayloseforevertheopportunitytoacquireanddevelopherownmoneyearningqualificationsandskills.’
UnitedStatesandCanadaIntheUnitedStatesandCanada,familylawsarestatelawsorprovinciallaws,andeachstateorprovinceenactsitsownlaws.ThestatesfollowthetraditionofEnglishcommon
![Page 120: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 120 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
lawortheContinentalorEuropeanlaw,dependinguponthehistoryoftheircolonization.
Thestates/provincesfollowingthecommonlawtraditionofEnglishlawstartedadoptingthecontinentalmodelofdivisionofpropertyinthe1970sonthebasisofequality.Withtheintroductionoftheno-faultdivorce,itbecamenecessarytomoveawayfromtheearliernotionofmaintenance,whichindicatesacontinueddependencyonatheoryofcleanbreak,bydividingtheassetsthataccruedduringthesubsistenceofmarriage.
Theearliernotionofstatusmarriageswiththenotionofwomen’sdependency,whichrequiredthecourtstoordermaintenance,wasnolongerfoundtoberelevantwithinthenewschemeofequalpartners.Thelanguageofthestatutesbecamegenderneutralandthelawfunctionedfromthepremiseofcompleteequalitybetweenthespouses.Withinthisframework,obligationsendedwithdivorceandanyongoingeconomicobligationwhichisrecognizedasappropriate,suchaschildsupportorpaymentofexistingmaritaldebts,isconsideredasharedandequalresponsibility.
DifferentstatesintheUnitedStatesadoptavarietyofspecificdistributionfactorsthataretypicallynotedincommonlawstatestatutes,orcourtopinionsinstateswithgeneralstatutorydirectives.Thesefactorsinclude:
1.Thelengthofthemarriage;2.Thepropertybroughttothemarriagebyeachparty;3.Thecontributionofeachpartytothemarriage,oftenwiththeexplicitadmonitionthatappropriateeconomicvalueistobegiventocontributionsofhomemakingandchild-careservices;4.Thecontributionbyonepartytotheeducation,training,orincreasedearningpoweroftheother;5.Whetheroneofthepartieshassubstantialassetsnotsubjecttodivisionbythecourt;6.Theageandphysicalandemotionalhealthoftheparties;7.Theearningcapacityofeachparty,includingeducationalbackground,training,employmentskills,workexperience,andlengthofabsencefromthejobmarket;8.Custodialresponsibilitiesforchildren;9.Thetimeandexpensenecessarytoacquiresufficienteducationortrainingtoenablethepartytobecomeself-supportingatastandardoflivingreasonablycomparabletothatenjoyedduringthemarriage.
Increasingly,someconsiderationisgiventothedesirabilityofawardingthefamilyhome,ortherighttolivethereforareasonableperiod,tothepartyhavingcustodyofanychildren.Inaddition,othereconomiccircumstancesmaybeconsidered.Theseinclude,vestedorunvestedpensionbenefits,futureinterests,thetaxconsequencestoeachparty,andtheamountanddurationofanordergrantingmaintenancepayments.
Ifawrittenagreementwasmadebythepartiesbeforeorduringthemarriageconcerning(p.231) anyarrangementforpropertydistribution,suchagreementsareoftenpresumedbindinguponthecourtunlessinequitable.Somestatutorysystemsthat
![Page 121: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 121 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
enumeratevariousfactorsexplicitlyendwithageneralcatch-allforjudicialdiscretionthatallowsconsiderationofsuchotherfactors,asthecourtmay,ineachindividualcasedeterminetoberelevant.
Thistendencytolimitthediscussionofrightsandobjectivestothoseofthespousesreflectsanimportantsocialdimensionandisconsistentwiththecontemporarypartnershipmodelofmarriage.Thisindividualisticapproach,coupledwiththeundeniablefactthatmoreresourcesarenecessarywhenanadulthastocareforchildreninadditiontoherself,meansthattheallocationofprivateresourcesatdivorcehasaprofoundeconomicandsocialimpactbecauseitaffectsthefutureabilityofacustodialparenttocareadequatelyforherchildren(Fineman1991:42).
TheCanadianstatutesgenerallyprovideforanunequaldivision,butdosocautiouslyandunderthebannerofjudicialdiscretion.Eachspouseisgenerallyentitledtohalfofbywhatevernameitgoesby–allfamilyassets,familyproperty,matrimonialassets,maritalassets,ormatrimonialproperty.McLeodandMalimo(2006)comment:‘Anequaldivisionofpropertydoesnotalwaysresultinafairdivision,forahostofreasons.Onepartymayhavetakenonallthedebts,inanothercase,apartymayhaveincurredgamblingdebtsandhidtheminthemortgageonfamilyloan.Agiftorinheritancemaybringhavocuponthefairnessofanotherwise“equal”division’.
Thelawisnotuniform,theterminologyisnotuniform,and,also,thecriteriaisnotuniform.Eachprovinceusesdifferentterminologyinthestatutebooks.Forinstance,lawyersinBritishColumbiaspeakofdetermininganddistributingfamilyassets,whileinOntariothetermusedisequalizingfamilyproperty.
Everystatutebeginswiththepresumptionthateachspouseownshalfofanymatrimonialproperty,butthefirsttaskistodeterminewhatconstitutesfamilyassets.Onceitcanbedeterminedwhatiswithinthepooloffamilyassets,apresumptionofequaldivisionwillapply.FromthatgeneraltheorytowhichallCanadianprovincessubscribe,thecourtcanusuallydeviate,ifequaldivisionispatentlyunfair.
AseloquentlystatedintheMaritalPropertyAct,1980,ofNewBrunswick,childcare,householdmanagement,andfinancialprovision,arejointresponsibilitiesofspousesandarerecognizedtobeofequalimportanceinassessingthecontributionoftherespectivespousestothematrimonialpropertyaswellastothemanagement,maintenance,andimprovementofmatrimonialproperty.Thecontributionofeachspousetothefulfilmentoftheseresponsibilitiesentitleseachtoanequalshareofthematrimonialproperty,andimposesoneachspouse,inrelationshiptotheother,theburdenofanequalshareofmaritaldebts.
TheOntarioFamilyLawAct,1990,stipulatesequaldivisionoffamilyproperty.Thefirstbattleistodeterminewhatisandwhatisnotafamilyassetand,therefore,subjecttothecleaveofthejudicialknife.TheOntariostatuteusesanesoterictermtodescribefamilyassets,anyinterest,presentorfuture,vestedorcontingentinrealorpersonalproperty.Thefollowingaretheexceptionstothisrule:
![Page 122: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 122 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
1.Property,otherthanamatrimonialhome,thatwasacquiredbygiftorinheritancefromathirdpersonafterthedateofthemarriage;2.Incomefrompropertyreferredto(above),ifthedonorortestatorhasexpresslystatedthatitistobeexcludedfromthespouse’snetfamilyproperty;3.Damagesorarighttodamagesforpersonalinjuries,nervousshock,mentaldistressorlossof(p.232) guidance,careandcompanionship,orthepartofasettlementthatrepresentsthosedamages;4.Proceedsorarighttoproceedsofapolicyoflifeinsurance,asdefinedunderthe(Ontario)InsuranceAct,thatarepayableonthedeathofthelifeinsured;5.Property,otherthanamatrimonialhome,intowhichpropertyreferredto(above)canbetraced;and,6.Propertythatthespouseshaveagreedbyadomesticcontractisnottobeincludedinthespouse’snetfamilyproperty.
Section5(6)oftheOntarioActhasauniqueclausewhichexcludesthefollowingfromequaldistribution:
1.Aspouse’sfailuretodisclosetotheotherspousedebtsorotherliabilitiesexistingatthedateofmarriage;2.Thatdebtsorotherliabilitiesclaimedinreductionofaspouse’snetfamilypropertywereincurredrecklesslyorinbadfaith;3.Thepartofaspouse’snetfamilypropertythatconsistsofgiftsmadebytheotherspouse;4.Aspouse’sintentionalorrecklessdepletionofhisorhernetfamilyproperty;5.Thattheamountaspousewouldotherwisereceive…isdisproportionatelylargeinrelationtoaperiodofcohabitation,thatislessthanfiveyears;6.Thatonespousehasincurredadisproportionatelylargeramountofdebtsorotherliabilitiesthantheotherspouseforthesupportofthefamily.
TheAlbertastatute,theMatrimonialPropertyAct,usesthewords,‘thecourtshallnotdistributethepropertyequallybetweenspouseswhenitappearstothecourtthatitwouldnotbejustandequitabletodoso,takingintoconsiderationthematterinjudicialdiscretioninSection8.’Section8definescertaincircumstancesandgivesscopeforjudicialdiscretionbyadding,‘afactorcircumstancesthatisrelevant.’Thisallowsunequaldistributionandprovidesthescopeforjudicialreapportionmentonthebasisoffairness.
AsimilarprovisionisalsofoundinSection65oftheFamilyRelationsAct,1996,ofBritishColumbiawhichistitled‘JudicialReapportionmentontheBasisofFairness’andwhichliststhedatewhenpropertywasacquiredordisposedof,aswellasthegeneralclause‘anyothercircumstancesrelatingtotheacquisition,preservation,maintenance,improvementoruseofproperty,orthecapacityorliabilitiesofaspouse.’
So,overall,judicialdiscretionplaysanimportantrolewhiledeterminingtheactualdistributionofpropertybetweenthespouses.
AustraliaandNewZealand
![Page 123: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 123 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Though,bothAustraliaandNewZealandbelongtothecommonlawtradition,thelegalprovisionsofdistributionofpropertyvaryagreatdealbetweenthesetwocountries.NewZealandenactedtheMatrimonialPropertyAct,1976,whichempoweredthecourtstodividematrimonialpropertybetweenthespousesatthetimeofdivorceandlaiddownelaborateguidelinesinrespectofthis.Thebasicpresumptionwasequality.In2002,thisActwasrenamedasthePropertyRelationshipsAct,1976,toawardlegalrecognitiontodefactocouplesandpartnersofsamesexrelationships.UndertheprovisionsoftherevisedAct,propertyisreferredtoasrelationalpropertyasopposedtotheearliertermmatrimonialpropertyandincludestherightsofdefactocouplesandsamesexrelationships.TheActwasfurtheramendedin2005toincludecivilunioncouples.
Australiafollowsthecommonlawapproachtofamilyrelatedissues,whichisessentiallynon-interventionistduringthesubsistenceof(p.233) marriage.Marriagehasnolegalimpactonaspouse’sownershipofproperty.Anythingownedbeforemarriageoracquiredinanymannerduringit,remainsthepropertyoftheownerandisunderhisorhermanagementandcontrolwhilethemarriagesubsists.Detailedprovisionsdefiningthenatureoffamilyassetsorentitlements,andpredeterminingsharesondeathordivorce,arequiteforeigntotheAnglo-Australianlegalsystem.TheFamilyLawAct(FLA)enactedin1975,containsnodefinitionofwhatisorisnotmatrimonialproperty,otherthanitsunhelpfulreferencetopropertytowhichthosepartiesare,orthatpartyis,asthecasemaybe,entitled,whetherinpossessionorreversion.Italsohasnopresumptionsorrulesastodistribution(Harrison1992).
TheActconferswidepowersonthecourttoadjustpropertyafteramarriagebreakdowninamanneritconsidersappropriate,provideditissatisfiedthat,inallthecircumstances,theparticularorderisjustandequitable.Thediscretionisnotcompletelyunfettered,asissuesofcontributiontothepropertyandneedsoftheparties(bothdefinedintheAct)mustbetakenintoaccount,althoughthereisnoobligationtospecifywhatweightageistobegiventothevariouscriteriawhensharesaredetermined.
TheAustraliansystemfordividingthematrimonialassetsondivorceisaseparatepropertyregime.Onseparation,thestartingpointwhendividingpropertyisthateachspouseretainsownershipofthepropertylegallytheirs.Thisis,however,onlyastartingpoint.UnderthefinancialprovisionsofFLA,thefamilycourtshavethediscretionarypowerstoalterparties’propertyinterestsonmarriagebreakdownifitisjustandequitabletomaketheorder.Exercisingthispowerrequiresthecourtstoconsidertheparties’respectivecontributionstothepropertyandotherfactorsunderSection75(2),includingtheirfuturefinancialneeds.Whendividingtheproperty,thecourtisdirectedtotakeaccountofthefinancialandnon-financialcontributionsmadetothepropertyandtothewelfareofthefamily.Non-financialcontributions,inparticular,includeanylabourthatmayhaveincreasedthevalueoftheproperty,aswellascontributionsmadetothewelfareofthefamilythroughunpaidworkathomeandcareofthechildren[Section79(4)].
Intheory,thetaskofdividingpropertybasedontheparties’respectivecontributionsappearssimple.However,inpractice,therearecleardifficultiesinvolvedincomparing
![Page 124: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 124 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
contributionswhicharefundamentallydifferent.Inthecaseofnon-financialcontributions,therearedifficultiesinvolvedinplacingamonetaryvalueonthecontributions.Thereisamovetorestrictjudicialdiscretioninevaluatingcontributionsbyintroducingastartingpointofequalsharinginthevalueofthematrimonialproperty–astartingpointthatisbasedontheprincipleofequalcontributionbythepartiestothepropertyofthemarriage.
Havingdeterminedtherespectivesharesofpropertybasedonthesecontributions,thecourtisdirectedtomakeanadjustmentwhichwouldtakeaccountofotherfactorsincludingthefutureneedsofeachoftheparties.Theestimationoffutureneedisbasedonfactorsorcircumstancesofabroadlyfinancialnature,suchastheageandhealthoftheparties,employmentprospects,andfinancialresources,responsibilityforthecareofchildrenpost-separationanddivorce,thedurationofthemarriage,andtheextenttowhichithasaffectedthefutureearningcapacityoftheparties.Inall,therearefifteenlargelyprospectivefactorsforconsiderationcoveringwhateachpartyislikelytoneedandwhateachisabletopaytosupporttheother.430.Inpractice,thissecondstagein(p.234) achievingajustandequitablesettlementisfrequentlyemployedtotakeintoaccountthefuturefinancialneedsofwomenandchildren.Womenwithdependentchildrencanbeataconsiderabledisadvantagecomparedtomenintermsoftheirfinancialcircumstancesandtheirincomeearningpotentialfollowingmaritaldissolution(SheehanandHughes2001).
Whilesimplifiedhere,thedetailedfinancialprovisionsthatgoverntheallocationofpropertyondivorceareinherentlycomplex,andthereisamplescopefordisagreementamongstthejudiciaryandthepartiesthemselvesastotheinterpretationoftheseprovisions.Thisisnotsurprising,giventhatthelawconferssuchwidediscretioninsettlingpropertymatters.Inaddition,thelawguidestheparties’actionsatatimeintheirliveswhentheyareunderconsiderableemotionalandfinancialstress,whenmutualconsiderationforoneanother’swelfareandduerecognitionoftheirrespectivecontributionstothemarriagemaynolongerbethenorm.
Insuchanenvironment,dividingpropertyondivorceisadifficulttask,andonewhichismadeevenharderforthesizeableminorityofwomenandmenwhosettletheirpropertymatterswithoutformallegalrepresentation.Thereis,therefore,apotentialfordiscordancebetweentheprovisionsofthelawdescribedabove,andtheapplicationoftheseprovisionsbywomenandmenwho‘bargainintheshadowofthelaw’(MnookinandKornhauser1979).
ThestudyconductedbytheAustralianInstituteofFamilyStudiesfoundthatpropertydivisionfailedtoshowequaloradequateconsiderationofindirectcontributionstothemarriageeconomybywomen(McDonald1986).Mothershadusuallywithdrawnfromthepaidworkforcetocareforyoungchildrenand,consequently,wereofteninaparlousfinancialpositionwhenthemarriagecametoanend.Theeconomicarrangementsmadeduringmarriagedidnothelpwomenafterseparation,whentheylostthebenefitofthemainincomeearnerbutretainedresponsibilityforalargeproportionofchild-related
![Page 125: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 125 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
expenses.Theirinterruptedjobhistoriesandchildcareresponsibilitiesalsodidnotequipthemforregularpaidemployment.
InNewZealand,marriedcoupleswerecoveredbytheequal-sharingrulesintheMatrimonialPropertyAct,1976.431TheActclassifiedpropertyundertwoheadings—matrimonialandseparate—andprovidedthatmatrimonialpropertywould,ingeneral,bedividedequally.TheActdividedmatrimonialproperty,inturn,intotwofurthercategories:
Thefamilyhomeandchattels(includingthefamilycarandfurniture)wouldbedividedequallyunless:
1.Themarriagewasforlessthanthreeyears(amarriageofshortduration);2.Therewereextraordinarycircumstancesthatwouldhavemadeequalsharingrepugnanttojustice;3.Inwhichcase,thehomeandchattelsweredividedaccordingtotheparties’contributionstothemarriagepartnership.
Othermatrimonialproperty(propertysuchasfamilybusinesses,investments,andinsurancepolicies,includingsuperannuationbenefits)wasdividedequallyunlesstheparties’contributionstothemarriagepartnershipwereclearlyunequal,inwhichcaseitwasdividedaccordingtotheparties’contributionstothemarriagepartnership.Thiswascalledbalancematrimonialproperty.
Thepresumptionthatthepropertyshouldbesplitfifty–fiftywasstrongerforthefamily(p.235) homeandchattelsthanitwasforothermatrimonialproperty.
Intheassessmentofthedifferentcontributionsmadetothemarriage,financialcontributionsdidnotrateanymorehighlythancontributionsofotherkinds,suchascaringforchildrenorperformingdomestictasks.
Theseparateproperty(allpropertynotclassedasmatrimonialproperty)remainedthepropertyofthepersonwhoowneditandwasnotdivided.Itincluded:
1.Propertythatthepartiesownedbeforetheymarriedandthattheykeptseparateduringthemarriage;2.Anygiftsandinheritancesthatthepartiesreceivedduringthemarriageandthattheykeptseparate
Separatepropertyalsoincludedallpropertyacquiredoutofseparateproperty,andtheproceedsofsellinganyseparateproperty.
Butifanincreaseinthevalueofoneparty’sseparateproperty,oranyincomeorgainsderivedfromtheproperty,wascausedwhollyorpartlybytheapplicationofmatrimonialproperty,thentheincrease,ortheincome,orgains,wasmatrimonialproperty,notseparateproperty.
![Page 126: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 126 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Similarly,ifanincreaseinthevalueofoneparty’sseparateproperty,oranyincomeorgainsderivedfromtheproperty,wascausedwhollyorpartybytheactionsoftheotherparty,theincrease,ortheincome,orgains,wastreatedasmatrimonialproperty.
Inthecaseofamarriageoflessthanthreeyears,equalsharingdidnotapplyto:
1.Thefamilyhomeoraparticularfamilychattel,ifitwasownedwhollyorsubstantiallybyonespouseatthedateofthemarriage,or,2.Thefamilyhomeoraparticularfamilychattel,ifitcametoonespouseafterthemarriagebegan,bysuccession,bysurvivorship,asabeneficiaryunderatrust,orbygiftfromathirdperson,or,3.Thefamilyhomeandallthefamilychattels,ifthecontributionofonespousetothemarriagewasclearlydisproportionatelygreaterthanthatoftheother.
Inthesecases,eachspouse’sshareinthepropertyinquestionwasdeterminedaccordingtothecontributionthateachspousemadetothemarriage.
Inthecaseofmatrimonialpropertyotherthanthefamilyhomeandchattels,eachspousewasentitledtoshareequallyinthepropertyunlesshisorhercontributiontothemarriagehadclearlybeengreaterthanthatoftheotherspouse,inwhichcase,thesharesweredeterminedaccordingtoeachspouse’scontributiontothemarriage.
Ingivingeffecttothedivisionoftheproperty,thecourtcouldmakevariousordersinrelationtotheproperty,generallyortoaspecificitemofproperty,suchasorderingpropertytobesoldor,inthecaseofthehome,orderingthatonepartyhastherighttooccupyit.
Thecourtconsideredtheinterestsofanydependentchildren.Indeterminingtheamountandvalueoftheproperty,thecourttookintoaccountanyoutstandingdebts.Ifthespouseshadenteredintoavalidmatrimonialpropertyagreement,matrimonialpropertywasdividedaccordingtothatagreementratherthantheAct.ThisismandatedtoascontractingoutoftheAct.However,inmakingtheagreementthespousesweremandatedtofollowstrictrequirements(includingeachpartyreceivingindependentlegaladvice),orelsetheagreementwasinvalid.
In2002,thereweremajorchangestothedivisionofpropertylaws.TheMatrimonialPropertyAct,1976,wasrenamedastheProperty(Relationships)Act,1976,andthepropertyofdefactocouples(includingsame-sexcouples)(p.236) wasbroughtwithinthepurviewoftheAct,andwassubjectedtothesameequal-sharingruleswhichearliergovernedpropertyofmarriedcouples.Further,inApril2005,civilunionswereestablishedasalegallyrecognizedformofrelationship,andcivilunioncouplesarenowtreatedthesameasmarriedcouplesundertheProperty(Relationships)Act.
Justastheoldequal-sharingruleswerelimitedinthewaytheyappliedtomarriagesoflessthanthreeyears(marriagesofshortduration),thereformedlawsalsoapplyonlytocivilunionsanddefactocouples,whohavelivedtogetherforatleastthreeyears.Prior
![Page 127: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 127 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
tothesereforms,defactocoupleswerenotcoveredbytheequal-sharingrulesthatappliedtomarriedcouples,butinsteadbytheordinaryrulesofpropertyownership.Itwas,therefore,presumedthatpropertyownedjointlybythecouplewouldbedividedequally,andthatpropertythatwasownedexclusivelybyonepartnerwouldnotbedivided.
SingaporeandMalaysiaTheRepublicofSingaporeandtheFederationofMalaysiawereadministrativelyconnectedandshareacommonlegaltraditioninheritedfromtheBritish.WhileMalaysiabecameindependentin1957,SingaporeevolvedastheStateofSingaporein1959,withthepowersofinternalselfgovernmentwhilethepowersofforeignaffairsanddefencewerecontrolledbyBritain.In1965,SingaporesevereditslinksfromBritainandevolvedasanindependentstate.OneofthefirsttasksundertakenwastoenactaWomen’sCharterin1961forempowermentofwomen.ThefamilylawreformsinMalaysiawereintroducedthroughtheLawReform(MarriageandDivorce)Act,1976.Duetothecommonlegaltraditions,thelegalprecedentsofSingaporecanberelieduponinMalaysia.BothSingaporeandMalaysiahaveseparatefamilylawsforMuslims.FamilycourtsweresetupinSingaporein1995.
ThelawsrelatedtomarriageandfamilyrelationsarelocatedinSection46oftheWomen’sCharterwhichstipulatesasfollows:
1.Uponthesolemnizationofmarriage,thehusbandandthewifeshallbemutuallyboundtoco-operatewitheachotherinsafeguardingtheinterestsoftheunionandincaringandprovidingforthechildren.2.Thehusbandandthewifeshallhavetherightseparatelytoengageinanytradeorprofessionorinsocialactivities.3.Thewifeshallhavetherighttouseherownsurnameandnameseparately.4.Thehusbandandthewifeshallhaveequalrightsintherunningofthematrimonialhousehold.
ThisprovisionwasadoptedfromSection159oftheSwissCivilCodeandprovidesamoralframeworkforregulationofmatrimonialrelationshipsinSingapore.ThesecondpartofSection46(4),whichwasalogicalprogression,containedtheprovisionofmatrimonialproperty,‘…Andintheownershipandmanagementoftheproperty’hadtobedeletedasitwasvehementlyopposed(Leong2008:25).Butin1996,Section112wasaddedtotheWomen’sCharterwhichempoweredthecourtstoorderthejustandequitabledivisionofmatrimonialassets.Thisamendmentchangedthelawwhichwasbasedonthecommonlawtraditionofseparationofproperty,withalimitedpowertomakesomeadjustmenttosettlementsupondivorce,totheconceptofdifferedcommunityofproperty.Underthedifferedcommunityofpropertyregime,whilethemarriagesubsists,thecommonlawnotionofseparationofpropertyprevailsandthespousesgaininterestintheother’spropertyonlybythegeneralrulesofpropertylaw.Butuponterminationofmarriage,(p.237) thecivillawofcommunityofpropertygetsinvokedandthepropertyisdividedequitablybetweenthespouses,irrespectiveoftheroleeachspousedischargedduringthecourseoftheirmarriage.Inparticular,whetheritwasa
![Page 128: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/128.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 128 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
financialoranon-financialrole,atthetimeofdivorce,thecourtsareempoweredtodividethepropertyequitablybetweenthem.
FromthetimewhenthispowerwasfirstusedbycourtsinKooShirleyv.MokKongChuaKenneth432in1989,thebodyofcaselawshasgrowndramatically.Inastudyconductedonthedivorcesettlement,itwashighlightedthatwomenwereabletosecureadequateeconomicsettlements:
Nohomemakerwifehasbeengivenlessthan35%ofthematrimonialassets,exceptintwocasesinvolving‘hugemoney’.Indeedhomemakerwiveswhoservedtheirrolesfor20yearsormorehavereceived50%…Thenextmostcommonproportionswerewhereonespousereceived10%morethantheother.Withthesetwocategoriesformingthevastmajorityofdecisionsgiveninrecentyears,itmaybesuggestedthatanorderofdivisionofmatrimonialassetsinSingaporeislikelytobeofequaldivisionorwithinanarrowrangefromequaldivision(Leong2007:696–8).
TheMalaysianCourtofAppeal,in2003,inSivanesRajaratnamv.UshaRaniSubramanium,433relieduponthedecisioninKooShirleyv.MokKongChuaKenneth(mentionedabove)whiledecidingthequestionofdivisionofmatrimonialassetsupondivorceundertheMalaysianfamilylaw.Thecourtcommentedthatwhileitwouldbedangeroustorelyuncriticallyondecidedcasesfromotherjurisdictions,asfarasthedecisionsofSingaporecourtsareconcerned,thismaynotnecessarilybesoasthetwoshareacommontradition.
InMalaysia,Section76(1)oftheLawReform(MarriageandDivorce)Act,1976(LRA),stipulatesthatthecourtshallhavethepower,whengrantingadecreeofdivorceorjudicialseparation,toorderthedivisionbetweenthepartiesofanyassetsacquiredbythemduringthemarriage,eitherbytheirjointeffortsorthesaleofanysuchassets,andthedivisionbetweenthepartiesoftheproceedsofsale.
Abdullah(2006:212–4)inherbook,FamilyLawforNon-MuslimsinMalaysiadiscussesthefollowingtwocases(amongothers)toelaboratethelegalprovisionsregardingthedistributionofmatrimonialpropertyupondivorce.
InChingSengWoahv.LimShookLin,434itwasheldthatthematrimonialhomeandeverythingwhichisputinitbyeitherspouse,withtheintentionthattheirhomeandchattelsshouldbeacontinuingresourceforthespousesandtheirchildren,tobeusedjointlyandseverallyforthebenefitofthefamilyasawhole.Itmattersnot,inthiscontext,whethertheassetsareacquiredsolelybytheonepartyortheother,orbytheirjointefforts.Whilethemarriagesubsists,theseassetsarematrimonialassets.Suchassetsshouldbecapitalassets.Thecourtfurtherruledthattheearningpowerofeachspouseisalsoanasset.
KoayChengEngv.LindaHerawatiSantoso435concernedamarriagebetweenaMalaysianhusbandandanIndonesianwifewhoweremarriedintheUnitedKingdomin
![Page 129: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/129.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 129 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
1980.Aftersixyearsofmarriage,thehusbandfiledforadivorceagainstthewife.Whiledecidingtheissueofdivisionofmatrimonialassets,thecourtheldthatthewife’sentitlementtohalfthematrimonialassetsinMalaysiaasisderivedunderSection76(1)and(2)ofLRA.Thecourtconsideredthewife’scontributiontowardsthehousehold,thatis,purchaseoffurniture,kitchenappliances,groceries,etc.,ascontributiontowardsacquiringthepropertyandheld(p.238) thatthewifeisentitledtohalfoftheassetsinMalaysiaandintheUnitedKingdom.Inaddition,thecourtconsideredtheEmployeesProvidentFund(EPF)contributionsasmatrimonialassetsacquiredduringthemarriage.Thecourtcommentedthatthewifehadenteredintothemarriagewiththeintentionofgrowingoldwiththehusband.OnhisretirementtheywouldbothenjoythebenefitfromthemoneysetasideinEPFcontributions.Therefore,withthebreakdownofthemarriage,thehusbandshouldnotbeallowedtosolelybenefitfromtheEPF.Hence,itwasheldthatthewifeisentitledtohalftheamountremaininginthehusband’sEPFaccountatthetimeofdivorceandsuchmoneyshouldbepaidtothewifewhenthesameispayabletothehusband.
CountriesGovernedbyIslamicLaw436
IncountriesgovernedbyIslamiclaws,generally,maritalassetsaredividedinequitably,withwomenreceivingthesmallershare.Suchinequitabledistributionresults,inpart,fromtheundervaluingofwomen’scontributionsinatleasttwodistinctways.Firstsomesystems(forinstanceIran)linkdivisionofmaritalpropertywithfaultratherthancomparativecontributionofeachspouseandifthewifeisjudgedtoberesponsibleforthedivorce,shemaynotbegivenhershare.Bytreatingawoman’srighttohershareofmatrimonialpropertyconditionally,thissystemfailstorecognizeawoman’srighttohershareofmatrimonialassetsasabsoluteandpresumethatonlyaman’srighttosuchpropertyisabsolute.Second,whendividingmaritalassetsthecourtsandotherstendtofocusonwomen’sdirectfinancialcontributionsthroughwagesandtoundervalueorfailtorecognizealtogethertheircontributionsthroughunpaiddomesticlabour.
Insomelegalsystems,whilegrantingdivorcethecourts,actingontheirowndiscretion,maydeterminethedivisionofmatrimonialproperty,forinstance,theCentralAsianRepublics,Fiji,Gambia,Malaysia,Singapore,Tanzania,andYemen.Undersomesystems(forinstanceCameroon,Iran,Philippines,Senegal),theassetsaredividedaccordingtothespouses’chosenmatrimonialpropertyregimes(communal/jointorseparate).
InFiji,unemployedwivesarenotrecognizedashavingcontributedtothemarriage.Senegal’sCodedelaFamilleenvisagesawoman’sownershipofassetswhichsheacquiredthroughherpaidprofession.Insuchsystems,thehusbandsbenefitfromawife’scontributionofherlabourandtimetothefamilyandanyfamilybusiness,yetthesebenefitsaregivennovaluewhenamarriageends.
InMalaysia,evenassetsacquiredindividuallybyonepartymaybedividedaslongasthepartywhichactuallypurchasedtheassetreceivesagreatershare.Though,thismayseemjustandequitableintheory,itleavesforaninsensitivejudgetoundervalueawoman’scontributionand,accordingly,awardherwithverylittle.However,awoman’shouseholdandfamilialeffortsaresometimestakenintoaccountincountriessuchasIran,
![Page 130: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/130.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 130 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Malaysia,andSingapore.
Optingforajointpropertyregime,whereallmaritalassetsareconsideredtobelongtothespousesequally,doesnotnecessarysolveawoman’sproblems,especiallywherepolygamyispracticed.Usuallythehusbandremainsinthemaritalhomeandcontrolstheassets,hence,lackofdivisionresultsinthewifeleavingthemaritalhomewithnothing.Also,courtsdonotalwaysdividejointpropertyequallyondivorce(p.239) andawomanmayhaveproblemsprovinghercontributiontowardsitsacquisition(Cameroon,Senegal).Sincewomenreturntotheirnatalhomesafterseparationordivorce,theyusuallylosetheirshareofthematrimonialpropertyasitiscontrolledbyhusbandorhisfamilymembers(CentralAsianRepublics).Thistendencyforpropertytoremainwiththehusbandandhisfamilycanmaketheenforcementofacourtsettlementthatfavoursthewifedifficult.
SincetheSouthAsiaregiondoesnotrecognizethenotionofmatrimonialproperty,PakistanandBangladeshdonothaveanylawsregardingpropertydivision.
InNigeriathereisnoconceptofdivisionofproperty.ThesuggestionfordivisionisdismissedasChristianand/orWesternimpositionwhich,inanycase,wouldbeunfairtoco-wives.
InIran,since1993,ahusbandwishingtodivorcehiswifeisrequiredtopaywagestoherforthehouseworkduringthesubsistenceofmarriage,providedsheisnotfoundtobeatfaultinthedivorceproceedings.In1995,itwasmadecompulsoryfordivorcinghusbandstopaythedeterminedwagesforhousework,alongwiththewife’sotherrights,suchasmehrandnafaqa,beforethedivorcecouldberegistered.
InSingapore,afterthe1999amendmentstotheAdministrationofMuslimLawAct,1966(ADMLA),thedefinitionofmatrimonialassetswasclarifiedandthefactorsthatthecourtscouldtakeintoaccount,whiledecidingthedivisionoftheseassets,wasalsoelaborated.ThefactorsthataretobetakenintoaccountareunderSection52(8)(a)ofADMLA:
1.Theextentofcontributionmadebyeachpartyinmoney,property,orwork,towardsacquiring,improving,ormaintainingtheproperty.2.Anydebtowing,orobligationincurred,orundertakenbyeitherparty,fortheirjointbenefitorforthebenefitofanychildofthemarriage.3.Theneedsofthechildren,ifany.4.Theextentofcontributionmadebyeachpartytothewelfareofthefamily,includinglookingafterthehome,orcaringforthefamily,oranyagedorinfirmrelative,ordependentofeitherparty.5.Anyagreementbetweenthepartieswithrespecttotheownershipanddivisionofthepropertymadeincontemplationofdivorce.6.Anyperiodofrentfreeoccupationorotherbenefitenjoyedbyonepartyinthematrimonialhometotheexclusionoftheotherparty.7.Thegivingofassistanceorsupportbyonepartytotheotherparty(whetherornotofamaterialkind),includingthegivingofassistanceorsupportwhichaidsthe
![Page 131: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/131.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 131 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
otherpartyinthecarryingonofhisorheroccupationorbusiness.8.Theincome,earningcapacity,property,andotherfinancialresources,whicheachofthepartieshas,orislikelytohave,intheforeseeablefuture.9.Thefinancialneeds,obligations,andresponsibilities,whicheachofthepartieshas,orislikelytohave,intheforeseeablefuture.10.Thestandardoflivingenjoyedbythefamilybeforethebreakdownofthemarriage.11.Theageofeachpartyandthedurationofthemarriage.12.Anyphysicalormentaldisabilityofeitheroftheparties–thevaluetoeitherofthepartiesofanybenefit(suchasapension)which,byreasonofthedissolutionofthemarriage,thatpartywillloosethechanceofacquiring.
Section52(14)oftheAmendmenttoADMLA1999,definesmatrimonialassetsas:
1.Anyassetacquiredbeforethemarriagebyonepartyorbothpartiestothemarriagewhichhadbeensubstantiallyimprovedduringthemarriagebytheotherpartyorbybothpartiestothemarriage.2.Anyassetofanynatureacquiredduringthemarriagebyonepartyorbothpartiestothemarriage.
However,thisdoesnotincludeanyasset(notbeingthematrimonialhome)thathasbeenacquiredbyonepartyatanytimebygiftorinheritance,andthathasnotbeensubstantiallyimprovedduring(p.240) themarriagebytheotherpartyorbybothpartiestothemarriage.
InTanzania,Section144(2)(a)oftheLawofMarriageAct(LMA)doesnotdefinematrimonialpropertybutdirectscourtstoorderthedivisionofmatrimonialproperty/assetacquiredthroughjointefforts,whennamesdonotappearintitledeedandwhenawifecannotprovedirectfinancialcontribution,itislefttothediscretionofjudges.BecauseLMAdoesnotindicatewhatshouldbeconsideredasassets/propertyacquiredthroughjointefforts,sousually,onlyfinancialcontributiongetsrecognized.
Inanimportantcase,BiZawadiAbdullahv.IbrahimIddi(Dar-es-SalaamRegistry,unreported)itwasheldthatthedomesticdutiesofaspousedonotconstitutecontributionwithinthemeaningofSection114oftheActand,thus,donotentitleaspousetoashareofthematrimonialassets.Inthiscase,thecourtrefusedtoequatehouseworkandchildbearingwiththehusband’spaidworkinevaluatingwhatconstitutesmatrimonialproperty.437
Butinanearliercase,BiHawaMohamedv.AllySefu(CivilAppealNo.9of1983,DaresSalaamRegistry,unreported),heldamoresympatheticviewofwomenregardingtheirdomesticdutiesofawifeascontribution,entitlingthespousetoashareinthematrimonialproperty.Definingdomesticduties,spousesaretobetreatedasworking,notonlyfortheircurrentneedsbutalsofortheirfutureneeds,boththeextentofcontributionandsuchfutureneedsaretobeassessedfromfamilyassetsacquiredduringthemarriageinkeepingwithextentofcontribution.
![Page 132: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/132.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 132 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Inthiscase,thehusbandarguedthathehadgivenmoneytothewifetostartabusinesswhichshehadsquanderedaway.Ifshehadinvestedthesameinstartingasmallbusiness,hersituationwouldnotbesobad.Itwasheldthatshewasanirresponsiblewifeand,hence,shewasleftwithverylittlemoneyforafinancialsettlement.438Itseemsthatgenerallycourtsaremoreamiabletoargumentsbythemalepartiesthanthosebyfemalepartiesoverpropertyentitlements.
NeedVersusContributioninDivisionofProperty439
Whentheconceptofa‘nofaultdivorce’andthepartnershipmodelofmarriagebasedonequalitywasintroduceditwasfeltthattheearlierconceptoftitleaswellasneedandfaultwouldceasetohaveanyrelevancewhilearrivingatmatrimonialsettlements.Theearlierstatus,basedmodelofmarriage,wasreplacedbyanegalitarianorequalitymodelunderwhichobligationsofspousesideallyendwiththemarriageandanyoutgoingeconomicobligation,suchaschildsupportorpaymentofexistingmaritaldebts,areconsideredsharedandequalresponsibilities.But,sincemarriageisnotapartnershipbetweenequals,theseassumptionsendupbeingunjustandinequitabletowomenwhodonotfitintothisneatformulaofapartnershipmodel.
(p.241) Themovementfromthestrictcommonlawsystem,basedontitle,tothemodernnotionofapartnership,basedonequallyvaluedthoughdifferentinkind,contributionstoamarriagecannotbeassumedtohavebenefitedallcategoriesofwomen.Itcannotbeassumedthatthecircumstancesthatgeneratedargumentsforadistributionsystemfocussedonneedarenolongerinexistence.Butthematerialcircumstancesofdivorcingwomenandchildrenarebeingdetrimentallyignoredbysupplantingafocusoncontributionastheprimarydistributiveconcept.AccordingtoFineman(1991a:270),theascendancyofcontributionmayrepresentaconvenientmodelofconceptualprogresstolegalacademicsandlawreformers,butformanydivorcingspouses,aswellasthepractisingprofessionalstowhomtheyturnforadvice,adversematerialcircumstances,andtheneedstheygenerate,havenotbeenleftbehind.
Shearguesthatonesourceofcontroversyaboutpropertydistributionrulesistheexistenceoftwocompeting,andperhapsincompatibleandunrealistic,politicalvisionsofcontemporarymarriages.Thefirstisthemoremodernviewthatmarriageasaninstitutionhasbeentransformedsoastobemoreconsistentwiththeformalisticnotionsofequalitybetweenthesexes.Thesecondisthemoretraditionalpolicystancethatthefamilyistheappropriate,perhapssolitary,institutiontoresolvetheproblemsofdependencyorneedthatinevitablyarisesinthecontextoffamilies.Highlyscepticalofthecontributionmodel,whichisbasedontheassumptionthatmarriageisapartnershipbetweenequals,shearguesfora“need”basedframework(ibid.:265).
Thedominanceofequalitymeansthatitwillalsoprovidethepreferredmethodofvaluingcontributionsand,thus,furtheravoidtheneedforanythingresemblingdetailedfactfindingorconsiderationofindividualizedcircumstancesontheactualamountofcontribution.Theequalitynormisformallyembodiedinprovisionswhichestablishaninitialpresumptionthatallpropertyofthespousesistobeequallydividedupondivorce.
![Page 133: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/133.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 133 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Thisequalityparadigmisconsistentwiththeorganizingconceptofmarriageasanequalpartnership.Equalityhassignificantsymbolicimportance,andthepartnershipmodelisarguedasnotonlyreflectingthepreferredorcorrectvisionofwomen,butalsoassecondarilyaddressingneed.Thedependentwoman,throughanideologicalfiat,isconsideredtobebenefittedinbeingbroughtuptopartnershipstatusandmadeanequal(ibid.:272–3).
Marriageisconsideredaunion,apartnershipofequals.Thisviewmandatesthatifapartnershipends,theaccumulatedassetsshouldbedividedinamannerconsistentwiththemodelunderwhichtheywereacquired.Iftwopartiesaremorallyorlegallyequivalentforonepurpose,thattheymustbemorallyorlegallyequivalentforallpurposesisanerroneousassumption.
Equalitystandards,inthedistributionofpropertyataconceptuallevel,maybelinkedtobroaderidealsofplacingequalvalueandpromotingfreedomofchoiceinmarriageroles.Makingequalitytheongoingconceptofunderlyingdivorcemaybeconsideredpartofaseriesofconscioussymbolicchoicesabouthowtobestensureamorejustsociety.But,whenequalityrhetoricistranslatedintospecificrulesgoverningdistribution,theresultsmustbemeasuredandassessedinmorethansymbolicterms.Symbolicexpressionmaybeimportant,butFinemanarguesthatcareshouldbetakensothatwhentranslatedintolegislationhavingadirectimpactonthelivesofmanypeople,theresultsalsomeetthestandardsoffairnessandjustice(ibid.:276).
Needhasnoroletoplayinatruepartnershipofequals.Thedependencyimage,incontrast,(p.242) anticipatesthatawomanhasbeenvictimizedtoacertainextentinamarriage.Sheisviewedashavingsacrificedcareergoalsandambitionsforthemarriage.Atdivorce,sheisdependentandthatdependencywillcontinue.She,therefore,hasneedswhichshouldbecompensatedinadditiontohercontributiontothemarriage.Thisfactcannotbeoverlookedwhileapplyingtheprincipleofequalitywhiledividingfamilyproperty.
Theneedbasedmodelandtheequalitymodelrepresentpolarendsonthespectrumoftransformationsthathaveoccurredinthewaysocietyviewsmarriageandthepositionofwomenwithinit.Theneedbasedfactorsmaywarrantadeviationfromtheequalityideal.Unfortunately,inthestatutoryschemesandcaselawsofmanycountriesdiscussedabove,theneedfactorsareneithersufficientlydevelopednorsufficientlycleartooffsetthepartnershipmodelwithitseasilygraspedcontributionfactors.Thewholesaleacceptanceofthepartnershipmodelmeans,however,thattheburdenofproduction,proof,andpersuasion,willbeplacedupontheonewhowouldarguethattheruleofequalityconceptisinadequate,givenherspecificcircumstances(ibid.:271).
Thereareavarietyofsituationsexperiencedbywomenatdivorcethatwillnotconformtoasimplisticapplicationofthecontributionconceptualizationoftheequalpartnershipmodel.Thisfailuretoadequatelyaccommodatethesedifferencesinwomen’smaterialcircumstanceshasledtoasystemofrulesofpropertydistributionappliedtoallwomen,butbasedontheexperiencesonlyofsome.
![Page 134: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/134.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 134 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Thecareofchildrenproducesdependency,notonlyforthechildren,butfortheprimarycaretaker.Itmustberecognizedthatthisdependencydoesnotendwhenthechildreacheseighteenoranyothermagicage(ibid.:271).Somefamilyrelationshipstendtolast.Thisisparticularlytrueoftheprimarycaretakingparentwhoisattachedtoherchildren.Theobligationsthatsuchaparentmayfeelarenotlegal,butmoraloremotional.Aparentwhodesirestoassistanewlyadultchildmaynotbedictatedtodosobylaw,butthatdoesnotmeanthatthelawshouldbeinsensitiveto(orunsupportiveof)hersensibilitieswhenassessingthemostsociallyusefulallocationofpropertyatdivorce.
Womenwhoarenotmothersbutchoosetobeunemployedduringmarriagemaybeconsideredovercompensatedbytheimpositionofthepartnershipmodel.Theywillbeovercompensatedtotheextentthattheydonotcontributewagestotheaccumulationofassets,nordotheycontributebyprovidinganon-monetaryservice,suchaschildcare,forthefamilyunit.Motherswhoaregainfullyemployed(and,therefore,arenotconsideredpoor),however,maybeundercompensatedbecausetheneedfactorswillbeinterpretedtoonarrowlytoremedytheneedsgeneratedbytheirpost-divorcesituationbutmaynotcompensatethesewomenforthedoubleburdentheyhaveundertakenduringthesubsistenceoftheirmarriage.Thecosttowomenofdeviatingfromthetraditionalhousewifemodelisextremelyhigh.Whentheconceptofcontributionissimplifiedandemployedsolelyinanefforttomakethehousewifeanequalpartner,othercircumstancesareignored.Infactthisconceptworkstothedisadvantageofthenon-housewifewoman.Suchawomannotonlypayswithhertimeandeffortwhilesheisdoingtwojobs,forexample,butalsoatdivorce,shemaybeviewedasnotinneedofassistancebecausesheisnota‘traditional’housewife.Thereisadangerthatthecontributionconceptmight,infact,beusedagainstwomenwhoarenotintraditionalroles.
Commitmenttotheequalityideal,typifiedbythepartnershipmetaphorastheappropriateanalyticalconstructtoguidedivorcepolicy,doesnotpermitustofacethefactthatwomen’sand(p.243) children’sneedsinthissocietyhavecontinuedtobeundervaluedandignored.Finemanarguesthattheequalityrhetoricnowassociatedwiththemarriagerelationshipmustbechallengedasinappropriateforresolvingdifficultquestionsinsituationssuchasdivorce,wheretheystandininherentlyunequalpositions(ibid.:278).
Anequalityviewofmarriagedeniesrealityformanywomenwhoassume,duringandafterthemarriage,morethanapartner’sshareintheconductandburdensassociatedwithhouseholdandchildcare.Thepartnershipmetaphorslipseasilyintoequalsharingofproperty,children,debts,andsoonatdivorce.Themetaphorhassymboliccontentthatispreservedonlyatsignificantcosttomanywomenwhomustsufferequalityinthisoneareawhiletherestofthesocietyandculturecontinuestotreatthemunequally(ibid.).
WhilewomeninmanyWesterncountries,wheretheequalitymodelhasbeenadoptedandpropertyisdividedonthebasisofcontribution,maysufferduetotheequalitymodel,inIndia,theprimarydeterminingfactorcontinuestobeneed,whichgetstranslatedintoatraditionalremedyofmaintenanceclaimsatabasicminimalsurvivallevel.Aswehaveobservedinthefirstsectiononmaintenance,guiltcontinuestoovershadow
![Page 135: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/135.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 135 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
maintenanceclaimsandtheamountsawardedrangefromconservativetomeagreandfarlessthanwhatadivorcedwomanwouldrequiretosustainherselfandherchildreninthesamestandardoflivingasherhusband.Hencedesertionanddiovrcerendersmultitudesofwomendestitute.Toremedythis,propertysettlementshavetobeincorporatedwithinmatrimoniallawsthroughlegislativereforms.Thereformswouldhavetotakeintoaccountboth,needandcontributionsothattheproblemfacedbywomeninWesterncountriesarenotreplicated.TheprincipleshavetoalsotakeintoaccountspecificIndianrealitiessuchasprevalenceofjointfamiliesasagainstthenuclearfamiliesoftheWestandthelegalincidentofaHindujointfamilyproperty.Theprinciplesadoptedhavetobenotjustequalbutalsoequitableandjustwhichwouldremedytheproblemofpovertyanddestitutionamongdivorcedwomen.
SectionD:CustodyandGuardianshipofMinors
HistoricalEvolutionoftheNotionofGuardianship
Thelegalterms,guardianshipandcustodyareusedinthecontextofchildrenandimplycertainlegalresponsibilitiestowardsthem.Guardianshipimpliestheproprietaryrightsoverthechild’spersonandproperty.Custodyimpliestheresponsibilityofraisingachild.Whilethefatherwasfavouredinissuesofproprietaryrights,themother’sroleascaretakerofherchildrenhadbeengrantedduerecognitionforwelloveracentury.
Amongtheancientsystems,bothRomanaswellastheMuslimlawrecognizedthefactthatminorchildrenorchildrenoftenderageneedcareandprotection.Itiswithinthecontextofthissocialneedthatanotionofguardianshipandcustodyfirstevolved.TheancientHindusocietywasorganizedonthebasisofthejointfamilysystemwhichwasmoreinclusive.Withinthissocialorganization,therewassufficientprotectionforallminorsanddependents.TheminorswerealwaysdeemedtobeinthecareandprotectionoftheKartaaswellastheeldersinthejointfamily.Withinthissocialstructure,evenanorphanchildwasawardedprotection.Hence,thenotionofguardianshipandcustodydidnotevolveundertheHindulaw.Evenundertribalcustomstheminorchildrenweredeemedtobelongtotheclanortribe.
TheMuslimlawlaysdowndetailedrulesregardingtheguardianshipofminor’sproperty,butthereareveryfewrulesregardingtheguardianshipofminor’sperson.ThisisbecausetheMuslimlawgiverscorrectlysurmisedthat(p.244) theguardianshipofaminor’spersonismoreamatterofcustody.ParasDiwancommentsthatthoughMuslimsocietyisessentiallypatriarchal,arulewaslaiddownthatcustodyofchildrenoftenderagebelongedtothemother(DiwanandDiwan1993:ix).TheEnglishlawrecognizedthisprincipleofIslamiclawonlyafteraprotractedstruggleextendingoveralmosttwocenturies,andthattoobylegislation.ItisratherunfortunatethatintheearlydaysoftheBritishrule,sometextbookwritersandjudgescouldnotdecipherthedistinctionbetweenguardianshipandcustodyunderMuslimlaw,andeitherundueprominencewasgiventopaternalrightsorthemotherwasdubbedastheguardianofherchildrenoftenderage.
![Page 136: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/136.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 136 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Hizanat(careandcontrolofthechild)isawelldevelopedconceptunderMuslimlaw.TheFatwaAlamgirideclares:Ofallpersons,themotherisbestentitledtothecustodyofherinfantchildrenduringmarriageandafteritsdissolution.Thetermhazinaisappliedtothewomantowhombelongstherightofrearingherchild.Ofallpersons,thefirstandforemostrighttohavethecustodyofchildrenbelongstothemotherandshecannotbedeprivedofherrightsolongassheisnotfoundguiltyofmisconduct.Themother’srightofhizanatcanbeenforcedagainstthefatheroranyotherperson.Buttherightofrearingthechildrenisnotabsolute;itisarighttowhichobligationsareattached.Ifsheisnotfoundsuitabletobringupthechild,orhercustodyisnotconducivetothephysical,moral,andintellectualwelfareofthechild,shecanbedeprivedofit.
StatutoryProvisions
TheGuardiansandWardsAct(GWA),1890,isoneoftheearlieststatutesenactedbytheBritishwhichaddressestheissueofguardianship.TheActwasofcommonapplication,thoughlegalprinciplesunderthepersonallawscouldalsobeinvoked.Later,duringthepost-Independenceperiod,whenlawsgoverningfamilyrelationshipsofHinduswerecodified,aspecialActwasenacted,thatis,TheHinduMinorityandGuardianshipAct(HMGA),1956,andHindusweretakenoutofthepurviewofthegenerallawandwereplacedunderthisspeciallawgoverningtheHindus.Despitethis,theprinciplesevolvedundertheGWAhavetobeappliedwhiledecidingcasesundertheHMGAasthefollowingcasesillustrate:
•TheSupremeCourt,inSurinderKaurSandhuv.HarbaxSinghSandhu,440whileawardingcustodytothemotherruledthatSection6ofHMGA,1956,cannotsupersedetheprinciplesevolvedunderGWAthatthewelfareofchildrenisparamount.
•ThePatnaHighCourtreaffirmedthisprincipleinBimlaDeviv.SubhasChandraYadavNirala,441andheldthatfromareadingofSection2andSection5(b)ofHMGA,1956,itbecomesclearthatthe1956Actistobetreatedasasupplementtothe1890statute.
Hence,principlesevolvedundertheGWAandHMGAcanbereadinterchangeably.So,thoughHMGAisappliedtoHindusandGWAtonon-Hindus,custodyandguardianshipissuesofboththeHindusandnon-Hindusaredecidedonthebasisofsamelegalmaxims.
CourtParensPatriaeofallMinors
SomeoftheearlieststatutesenactedbythelegislatureinBritishIndiaconcernedprotectionofminors.Theprovisions,scatteredundervariousBritishChartersandRegulations,regardingcareandcustodyofchildrenweresubsequentlyconsolidatedintotheGWAin1890.442
(p.245) TheIndiancourtswereconsideredtobethesupremeguardiansofallminorsduringcolonialrule.Assupremeguardians,thecourtsexercisedparentaljurisdictioninrespectofallchildren,irrespectiveoftheirreligion.ThisnotionprevailingundertheEnglishlawwasintroducedinIndia,firstthroughvariousBritishChartersand
![Page 137: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/137.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 137 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Regulations,and,subsequently,incorporatedundertheGWA.ThecourtswereentrustedwiththesamepowerastheCourtofChanceryinEngland.Thispowerispresentlyexercisedbythedistrictcourtandthehighcourtunderitsinherentjurisdiction.Thedutyofprotectionandpreservationofinfantsandtheirpropertydevolvesontheguardianjudge,therepresentativeofthesovereignstate(BabuGyanv.Sudan).443
Whenthechildisbroughtbeforethecourt,thecourtassumeschargeandendeavourstoensurethewell-beingofthechildinthesamemannerasanaturalparentwouldhavedone.Thisfunctionisdischargedbytheguardiancourtbyappointingasuitablepersonastheguardianofthechild.WhenaguardianisappointedundertheAct,thecontrolofthepersonandpropertyisvestedinthecourt,theguardianbeingitsnominee.FollowingtheEnglishdoctrine,parenspatriae,theActinvestsitspowersinanindividualtolookafterthechild.Theguardianactsunderthesuperintendenceandsupervisionofthecourt.
OnlyaminoriseligibleforprotectionundertheAct,buttheActdoesnotdefineaminor.TheIndianMajorityActof1875,definesaminorinnegativeterms,thatis,aminorisapersonwhohasnotattainedmajority.Sincetheageofmajorityiseighteen,itcanbeconstruedthatapersonbelowthisagewouldbeeligibleforprotectionunderthisAct.444Onceaguardianisappointedtheperiodofminorityextendsbyafurtherthreeyears,untilthechildattainstwentyoneyears.Hence,thecourtswillrestrainfromappointingaguardianinrespectofachildwhoisnearingmajority(ApagappaAyyangarv.Mangathai).445Thecourtwillappointaguardianonlyifitissatisfiedthatappointmentofguardianisnecessaryforthewell-beingofthechild.Thecourtshavealsoadoptedaviewthatintheabsenceofafather,ifthemotherisfitandcompetent,thereisnoneedtoformallyappointherasaguardian,sincesheisthenaturalguardianofthechild.
Apersonshouldbewillingtobeappointedasaguardian.Adefactoguardian(apersonwhohasalreadyassumedguardianshipofthechild),atestamentaryguardian,oraguardianunderadeedofinstrument,maybedeclaredasalegalguardianbythecourtinordertoavoidanyfuturedisputes.Declaringapersonasaguardianindicatesjudicialrecognitionofhis/herstatusasaguardian.Appointmentasaguardianisnotaquestionofprivateorcivilright.Anyexistingorpreviousrelationship,wishesoftheparents,andcharacterandconductofthepersontobeappointedasaguardian,arerelevantfactors.Thecourtsmayalsoconsiderthewishesofthechild.Whileallthesecanbecontributoryfactors,theonlyprinciplewhichismandatoryisthewelfareoftheminor.
Onceaguardianisappointed,theminorbecomesthewardoftheguardianandafiduciaryrelationshipisestablishedbetweentheguardianandward,whichisofajuridicalnature.Thisisarelationshipofutmosttrust,akintotheonethatsubsistsbetweenthenaturalparentandchild.Theguardianmustlookafterthechild’sgeneralwell-being,health,andeducation.Ifappointedasaguardianoftheminor’sproperty,theguardianmustnotprofitpersonallyfromit.(p.246) Iftheguardianisfoundunsuitable,thecourthasthepowertodeprivethepersonoftheguardianshipthroughacourtorder.
![Page 138: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/138.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 138 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
CustodyDisputesandWomen’sRights
ChallengestotheNotionofPaternalRightsWhileaguardiancouldbeappointedforaminorwhoisanorphanorwhohaslosthis/herfather,itwaspresumedthatasanaturalguardianthefatherhasasuperiorrightoverhischildrenandthisrightisundisputed.Ontheotherhand,paternalobligationsandresponsibilitytowardschildrenwerenotgivendueimportance.Itwasmoreaquestionofafather’srightoverhischildrenthanhisobligationstowardsthem.Eventheobligationtomaintainthechildrenwasnotrecognized.UnderEnglishlaw,itwasamoral(andnotalegal)obligationandthiswasconfinedonlytolegitimatechildren.Therewasnoobligationtomaintaintheillegitimatechildren.ThoughbothMuslimandHindulawsrecognizedthatmaintenanceofchildrenisapersonalobligation,underHindulaw,theobligationwasnotabsolute.ButHindulawrecognizedthepaternalobligationtomaintainbothlegitimateandillegitimatechildren.
Therehasbeenashiftinmoderntimesandtodaythereisanobligationtomaintainbothlegitimateandillegitimatechildren.Theobligationtomaintainchildrenisimposedonbothparents.Alongsidetheobligationtomaintainandeducatechildren,themodernlawofmanycountriesalsoimposescriminalliabilityfordeliberatelyneglectingthem.ABombayHighCourtjudgmenthasgonetotheextentofstatingthatafatherwhodoesnotmaintainhischildrendoesnothavethewelfareofhischildrenatheartand,hence,heisnoteligiblefor(therightof)accesstothechild.
Astatuteenactedfortheprotectionofminorswhowereorphans,cametotherescueofwomenwhowereseparatedfromtheirhusbands.Soonaftermarriedwomenwereawardedtherightoflegalseparationanddivorce,thecontentiousquestionofcustodystartedformingasignificantaspectofthisstatute.TheGWAwasbasedontheprinciplesofEnglishfamilylawandsubscribedtothedoctrinethatthefatheristhenaturalguardianofthechild.AftertheenactmentoftheMatrimonialCausesAct,1857,separatedanddivorcedwivesstartedapproachingthecourtsseekingcustodyoftheirchildrenandintheprocesschallengedtheprincipleofnaturalguardianshipoftheirhusbands.Itisinthiscontextthattheprinciple,thebestinterestofthechildisparamountstartedgainingrecognitionasopposedtothepaternalrightsofthefather.Bythemid-twentiethcentury,theprinciplebecameoneoftheprimarypillarsofthefamilylawinEngland.
TheearliestjudicialpronouncementsoftheEnglishcourtsacknowledgedtheundisputedprimacyofthefather.Evenimmoralityormisconductcouldnotdislodgethepremisethatasanaturalguardian,hehastheprimaryrighttocustodyofhischildren.Forinstance,in1849,theEnglishcourtsinWardev.Wardeheld:‘Mereimmoralityofthefatherisnotsufficienttodeprivehimofcustody.’
TheGWAincorporatedthetensionthenprevailinginEngland.WhileSection19stipulatedthatfatheristhenaturalguardianoftheminor,Section17prescribedthatwelfareofthechildisparamount.Thereisaninternalinconsistencybetweenthesetwosections.HenceitwasleftforthecourtstofirmlyestablishthesuperiorityofSection17overthatofSection19andrenderthedoctrineofthewelfareofthechildisparamountasanon-
![Page 139: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/139.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 139 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
negotiablemandateindecidingcustodyofchildrenasagainstthestipulationunderSection19thatthefatheristhenaturalguardianoftheminor.
(p.247) Initially,thecourtsacknowledgedthesuperiorrightofthefather,asthesecasesdemonstrate:
1.In1914,inAnnieBesantv.Narayaniah,446thePrivyCouncildeclaredthatthefatherhastheparamountrighttothecustodyofthechildren.Hecannotbedeprivedofthisrightunlessitisclearlyshownthatheisunfittobetheirguardian.2.In1924,inSukhdeov.RamChandra,447thecourtheld:Animmoralfatherhasjustasgoodarighttohisownchildrenasamoralone,andinmanycases,heisjustaslikelytoseethathischildrenareproperlybroughtupevenifhehimselfdoesnotliveproperly.3.In1940,inMstAlitaTawaifv.ParmatmaPrasad,448anerrantfatherwasgivencustodyofthechildasagainstthemotherwhowasatawaif(courtesan).
Butgradually,courtsbegantoconcedethatdespitebeinganaturalguardian,thefather’srightsoverhischildrenarenotabsolute(CaptainRattanAmolSinghv.KamaljitKaur).449Inthe1970s,thecourtswentfurtherandruledthatifthefatherisunfittobetheguardianoftheminor,orisnotinapositiontolookafterthewell-beingofthechild,thecourtiscompetenttoremovethechildfromhiscustodyandhandoverthechildtothemotheroranyoneelseappointedbythecourtasguardian(Kamalammav.LaxminarayanaRaoandBudhulalShankarlalv.AnInfantChild).450
Whileacknowledgingtherightsofthemother,thecourtsheldthatretentionofcustodywiththemotherisnotunlawfulandproceedingscannotbeinitiatedagainstherforwrongfulconfinement.Thecourtsalsobegantochastisethehusbandforremovingthechildfromthecustodyofthewife.Thecourtsalsoconcededthatevenanaffluentfathercouldbedeprivedofcustodyofthechildandaffluenceofthefatherandhisfamilyisnotacriterionwhichcouldtiltthebalanceinfavourofthefather(SurinderKaurSandhuv.HarbaxSinghSandhu).451Thecourtshavefurtherheldthatevenifthefatherisaffectionatetowardsthechildandisfoundtobenotunfit,thiscannotbeacriteriatodenythemother,whomightbeequallyaffectionate,caringandcompetent,thecustodyofthechild.Somerecentrulingsonthisissuearediscussedbelow:
1.In1987,inElizabethDinshawv.ArvandM.Dinshaw,452wherethefatherhadtakenawaythechildfromthecustodyofthemotherwhowaslivinginU.S.A.,theSupremeCourtobservedthattheconductofthefatherintakingthechildfromthemother,towhomitwasentrustedbyacompetentcourt,wasmostreprehensible.Theexplanationgivenbyhimabouthisfather’sillnesswasfarfromconvincingnotjustifyingthegrossviolationandcontemptoftheorderofthecourt.Thecourtalsoobservedthatthechild’spresenceinIndiawastheresultofanillegalactofabduction.Theconductofthefatherhadnotbeensuchastoinspireconfidencethatheisafitandsuitablepersontobeentrustedwiththecustodyandguardianshipofthechild.TheCourtheld:‘Wheneveraquestion
![Page 140: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/140.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 140 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
arisesbeforeacourtpertainingtothecustodyofaminorchild,thematteristobedecidednotonconsiderationsofthelegalrightsofpartiesbutonthesoleandpredominantcriterionofwhatwouldbestservetheinterestandwelfareoftheminor.’Thecourtrestoredthecustodytothemother.
In1993,inVinodchandraGajananDeokarv.AnupamaVinodchandra,453B.N.Srikrishna,(p.248) JusticeoftheBombayHighCourtheldthatafathercanbedeniedaccessuntilhedisplayedevidenceofreformandpaidtheinterimmaintenancearrears.Thefatherhadrefusedtocomplywiththeorderofinterimmaintenancetothewifeandthechild.Observingthatfreshairandplentyoflovewouldhardlybesufficienttosustainlife,thecourtheldthatthenecessityofdailysustenancewouldhavetobeprovidedbythefatherifhelovedthechild.Thecourtcommentedthatthefatherhadactedwithaspiritofvengeanceandaveinofsadism.Accordingly,thecourtdeniedaccesstothefatherunlessanduntilhedisplayedevidenceofcontrition,penitence,andreform,andpaidthearrearsofinterimmaintenance.Thisjudgmentgoesalongwayincounteringthepremiseofpaternalright,notonlyofcustodyandguardianshipbutalsoofaccesstothechildandturnsitintoapaternalobligation.
Again,in1993,inOmPrakashBharukav.ShakuntalaModi,454theGauhatiHighCourtheldthatthefactthatthefatherloveshischildren,andisnototherwiseunfit,cannotnecessarilyleadtotheconclusionthatthewelfareofthechildrenwouldbebetterpromotedbygrantingtheircustodytohimasagainstthewife,whomayalsobeequallyaffectionatetowardsherchildrenandotherwiseequallyfreefromblemish,andwho,inaddition,becauseofherprofessionandfinancialresourcesmaybeinapositiontoguaranteebetterhealth,education,andmaintenanceforthem.
In1997,inAnjaliAnilRangariv.AnilKripasagarRangari,455theSupremeCourtheldthatitcannotbedisputedthatthemotherisalsoanaturalguardianunderSection6oftheHMGA,1956.Accordingly,theCourtheldthatthecustodyofthechildrenwiththemotherwasneitherunlawfulnorweretheywrongfullyconfinedbythemother.
DoctrineofChildofTenderAgeorHizanatIftheprinciplethatinapatriarchalsystem,thefather,asheadofthefamily,isthenaturalguardiancouldbeusedtoawardcustodytothefather,acorrespondingprincipleofthepatriarchalfamilysystemthatthemotheristhenaturalcaretakerofchildrenoftenderage,couldbeusedtosubstantiatethemother’sclaimtocustody.Incaseofinfantchildren,courtsaregenerallyinclinedtowardsthemother.Itisgenerallyacceptedthatmotheristhebestsuitedpersontolookafterachildoftenderageandthatthereisnosubstituteformother’scareandaffection.InitiallytheEnglishlawsubscribedtothenotionofthesupremacyofpaternalrightsandthetenderagedoctrinedidnotfindaplacewithinbattlesoverchildcustody.Thecourtsdidnothesitatetohandoverachildatthebreastofthemothertothefather(Kingv.DeMannerville).456TheTalfordActof1839wasthefirststatutorymodificationrecognizingthemother’spreferentialclaimtothecustodyofchildrenuptotheageofseven.TheCustodyofInfantsAct,1873,raisedtheageofthetenderagechildtosixteen.TheGuardianshipofInfantsAct,1886,popularlyknownasMothers’Actgavestatutoryrecognitiontothedoctrineofchildof
![Page 141: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/141.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 141 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
tenderage.Thereafter,theEnglishcourtsbegantogiveaseriousconsiderationtothisprinciple.Inaleadingcase,InreA.andB.,457whilegrantingcustodyofthetwominorchildrentoboththeparentsthecourtheld:‘Itisimportantforchildrenthattheyshouldbebroughtupintheirtenderageontermsofaffectionwith(p.249) eachotherandthattheyshouldknowboththeparents.’
In1926,inW.v.W.,458thecourtlaiddownthatthechildoftenderageshouldordinarilyremainwiththemother.InAllenv.Allen,459thetrialcourtawardedcustodyofaneight-year-oldgirltothefatherasagainstthemotherwhowasfoundguiltyofadultery.Inappeal,itwasheld:‘Itwouldnotberighttosnatchthefemalechildfromhermotherandforcehertomakeanewstartwithherfatherandstepmother.’
TheIndiancourtshadnodifficultyinpropoundingthisprinciple.BothMuslimlawaswellasHMGArecognizedthisprinciple.TheMuslimlaw,underthenotionofhizanatlaysdownthatthecustodyofasonofsevenyearsandagirlofthirteenyearsshouldbewiththemother.Similarly,HMGAlaysdownthatachildunderfiveyearsshouldordinarilyresidewiththemother.460Buttheconversedoesnotholdtrue,anditcannotbeconstruedthatthecustodyofanychildabovethespecifiedagewillordinarilybewiththefather.Theprincipleofthewelfareofthechildhastobeappliedinallcases.
ThePunjabChiefCourt,461asfarbackasin1917,inAhmedv.Rehmatan,462heldthatthecustodyofachildoftenderageshouldbewiththemotherevenifshehadremarried.Similarly,in1926,theLahoreHighCourtinZainabBibiv.AbdulKareem463awardedcustodytoaMuslimmotherwhohadremarried.InSamuelv.Stella,464thecourtawardedthecustodyofafemalechildofthirteenyears,whowasdelicateinhealth,tothemother.
Morerecently,thecourtshaveexpandedthescopeofthenotionofhizanatandhavereadprinciplesofDeclarationoftheRightsoftheChild,1959,adoptedunanimouslybytheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,intoitasthefollowingcaseillustrates.Thecourtsalsohaveexpandedthenotionofbestinterestoftheminorisparamount.
1.InMumtazBegumv.MubarakHussain,465thehusbandhadretainedthecustodyofasonwhowasonlyafewmonthsoldafterthrowingthemotheroutofhermatrimonialhome.ThecourtproceedingsdraggedonforfouryearsandcustodywasdeniedtothemotheronatechnicalgroundthatshehadnotfiledthepetitionundertheGWA.Inappeal,whileawardingthecustodytothemother,thehighcourtreliedupontheDeclarationoftheRightsoftheChild,1959,ThecourtalsorelieduponajudgmentbyRizviJ.oftheLahoreHighCourtinBaviv.ShahNawazKhan,466wherethestipulationofhizanatwasexplainedasfollows:
TheprincipleofMuhammadenlawasregardshizanatisfundamentallybasedontheprinciplethatitisforthewelfareoftheminors.…Thechildneedsmotherlyloveandaffection,morethananythingelse.Theenvironmentinwhichheisbeingnowbroughtupisunsuitedtohismentalgrowthanddevelopment.Thefatherhardlyfindstimeeventotalktohim,leavingthehouseinthemorningandreturningquitelateintheevening
![Page 142: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/142.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 142 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
whenthechildwouldbeinbed.Hisstepmother,whohasa(tinyinfant)ofherown,wouldalso,definitely,havelittletimeforhim.Thechild’sgrandparents,admittedly,beingphysicallyhandicapped,alsocannotdoanythingforhim.
ThecourtexplainedthatinPrinciple2oftheDeclaration,thereisamandateforenactmentoflawsforspecialprotectionofthechild(p.250) toenablehimto‘developphysically,mentally,morally,spirituallyandsociallyinahealthyandnormalmanner’andstipulatedthat‘thebestinterestsofthechildshallbetheparamountconsideration’.Thecourtfurthercommented:
Whenpersonallawsaredivinelysanctioned,apresumptionwillnaturallyarisethatsuchlawshaveahumanisticcontentbecausewhengreatseers,saints,andprophets,foundanyfaith,theyactasbenefactorsofthemankindasawhole.Nopersonallawclaimingdivinesanctioncanaffordtodenyparamountconsiderationtothewelfareofthechild.Itisnotdifficult,therefore,toseewhytheDeclarationwasunanimouslyadoptedbytheUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyin1959.
2.InMohd.AyubKhanv.SairaBegum,467thehusbandvehementlyopposedtheapplicationforinterimmaintenance,evenforminorchildren,toothandnail.Hence,theapplicationforinterimmaintenancewasrejectedbythetrialcourt.Thewifeapproachedthesessionscourtwhichsetasidethetrialcourtorderandremittedthematterbacktothetrialcourttodecidetheissueofinterimmaintenance.Finally,thetrialcourtawardedRs300foreachoftheminorchildrenasmaintenance.Thehusbandpleadedthathehasdivorcedhiswifeand,hence,shewasnotawardedanymaintenance.Thehusbanddidnotcomplywiththeorderofmaintenanceanddidnotpayanymoneytothewifeeitheratthetimeofdivorceoratanyothertime,eventowardsthemaintenanceofthethreechildren.Whiletheseproceedingswerepending,thehusbandrealizedthattheeldestsonhadturned7.HetookshelterundertheShariatlawandfiledanapplicationunderSection9readwithSection25oftheGWAforcustodyoftheeldestson.Thehusbandpleadedthatthewifewasnotlookingafterthechildwellandtheupkeep,maintenance,andeducation,ofthechildwasnotpossibleatthematernalgrandfather’splace.Afterinterviewingthechild,thetrialcourthasremarkedthatthechildwasbeingwellbroughtupbythemotherandthegrandfather,andwaslivinghappilywithhistwobrothersandattendingschoolregularly.Againstthistrialcourtorderrejectinghispetitionforcustody,thehusbandapproachedthehighcourt.Thecourtcommented:
Thefatherfailedtoprovehisentitlementtocustodyofthechild.OnonesidehewascontestingthelitigationunderSection125ofCr.PCandontheotherwasprojectinghimselftobeacaringfather,whowasinterestedinthefuturewell-beingofhisson.Apersonrefusingtopaymaintenancetohisownchildcannotclaimheisinterestedinbettermentofverysamechild.Theinterestofchildisofparamountconsideration.Whileclaimingthatheisinterestedinthewell-beingofhischildren,hehasclaimedcustodyofonly
![Page 143: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/143.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 143 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
onechild.Ifthefatherwasreallyinterestedinthebettermentofhischildren,hewouldhaveconcededtosharehisincomewithhischildren.Butinstead,hedraggedthewifefromcourttocourtwhileopposingherapplicationformaintenance.Afterfilingthispetition,heagreedtodepositsomemoneyforthemaintenanceoftheelderson,butnotfortheothertwochildren.Finally,hedepositedRs6,000incourt.Butthiscannotbeprojectedasagroundforawardingcustodytothefather.Theprincipleofbestinterestofthechildmustprevail.
AllegationsofImmoralityandWomen’sRighttoCustodyWhilewomenwonthebattleagainsttheconceptofnaturalguardianshipofthefatherbyusingthedoctrineofchildoftenderageandtookbenefitofthefactthatsheistheprimarycaretakerofchildrenoftenderage,thebattleagainstthenotionofimmoralitywasfarmoredifficult.Prostitutes,tawaifs(courtesans),womenpresumedtobeofloosemoralcharacter,womenfoundguiltyofadulteryinmatrimonialdisputes,andwomenwhohadremarried,wereroutinelydeniedcustodyoftheirchildren.Butthesameyardstickofmoralcharacterwasnever(p.251) appliedtohusbands,asalreadydiscussedearlier.Thisisbecauseofthedifferingstandardsofmoralitywhichisappliedtomenandwomeninapatriarchalsociety.Sexualmoralityisperceivedtobethesinglerelevantfactorthatcouldbeusedtodenywomencustody.Attheinitialstage,theissueofthewomen’sconductandcharacterbecameacrucialingredientwhiledecidingissuesofcustody.Hence,allegationsofimmoralityandsexualmisconductwereroutinelyhurledagainstwomenincustodybattles.Awifewhohadcommittedamatrimonialfaultlikeadulterywasnotawardedcustodyofherchild.In1862,inSeddonv.Seddon,468theEnglishcourtsproclaimed:Itwillprobablyhavesalutaryeffectontheinterestsofpublicmoralitythatitshouldbeknownthatawoman,iffoundofguiltyofadultery,willforfeitallrightstothecustodyof,oraccesstoherchildren(ascitedinDiwanandDiwan1993:440).
IntheIndiancontext,initiallyawomanwhohadcommittedamatrimonialfaultwasdeniedcustodyofchildren.InSkinnerv.Orde,469thePrivyCouncilheldthatuponconversion,themotherlosesherrightofcustodytoherchild.InVenkammav.Savitramma,470thecourtheldthatamotherwhowasleadinganimmorallifewasnotentitledtocustodyofherchild.Butthesameprinciplewasnotappliedtohusbandsandthecourtsdidnothesitatetogivecustodytoanerrantorimmoralfather.InKaulesrav.Joral,471custodywasgiventoanimmoralmotherastherewasnoothersuitableperson.
Butonewitnessedalenientapproachtowardswomenwhodidnothavethemeanstosupporttheirchildrenorwomenwhohadbeenaccusedofadultery.In1934,theAllahabadHighCourt,inHaidriBegamv.JawwadAli,472ruledthatthemerefactthatthemotherdoesnothaveadequatemeansisnotsufficienttodenyhercustody,particularlywhentherewasnoallegationofadultery.InMadhuBalav.ArunKhanna,473thecourtsheldthatinordertodenycustodytothemotheronthegroundofadultery,averystrictstandardofproofhastobeapplied.Latercaseshaveheldthatevenremarriageoraccusationsofadulterycannotbethegoverningprinciplestodeprivethemotherofherrightofcustodyandguardianshipasthefollowingtwocasesillustrate:
![Page 144: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/144.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 144 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
InChethanaRamatheerthav.KumarV.Jahgirdar,474thewifefiledanappealagainsttheorderofthefamilycourt,Bangalore,directinghertohandoverthecustodyofherminordaughtertoherhusbandonthegroundthatshehadremarried.TheKarnatakaHighCourtreversedtheorderofthefamilycourtandallowedthecustodyofthedaughtertoberetainedwiththemother.TheCourtheld:
Evenwhiletheparenthadnotdisqualifiedhimselforherselffrombeingthenaturalguardianofaminorchild,itmaystillbefoundthattheminor’sinterestisbetterservedifthecustodyofthechildiswiththeotherparent.Theremarriageofthemotherafterdivorcedoesnotsufferfromanydisqualificationordrawback.Themotheriswelleducatedandcansupportthechildfinancially.TheparamountconsiderationinappointinganypersonasguardianofaHinduminoristhewelfareoftheminor.
InSadhanaRandevv.SantoshKumar,475thefathersuedforcustodyofhischildren,levellingallegationsofunchastebehaviouragainsthisformerwife.Despitetheallegations,thecourtupheldtherightofthemotherforcustodyofherchildren.TheAllahabadHighCourtheld(p.252) thatthedecidingfactorwasthewelfareandwishesoftheminorandruledasfollows:Regardlessofwhetherornotthemotherwashavingrelationswithanyone(anaccusationwhichwasneverproved),sheshouldnotbedisqualifiedfrombeingthechildren’sguardianandretainingcustodyonthatground.Thechildren’spreferenceistostaywiththeirmother,andtheemotionalvalueofthemotherlyinstinctarefarmoreimportantthananyallegationsofimmoralityraisedbythefather.Thoughthechildrenhadpassedtheageof13years,theycannotbeturnedovertotheirfatheragainsttheirwishes.
MotherastheNaturalGuardian:GitaHariharan
InthecaseofGitaHariharanv.ReserveBankofIndia,476theSupremeCourtwascalledupontodecidetheconstitutionalvalidityoftheprovisionthatthefatherwasthenaturalguardianofaminor.
TheissuebeforetheSupremeCourtwaswhetherthemothercouldbethenaturalguardianofherminorchild.AsperAnandCJandM.SrinivasanJ.,thedefinitionofguardianandnaturalguardiandonotmakeanydiscriminationagainstthemotherandshebeingoneoftheguardiansmentionedinSection6wouldundoubtedlybeanaturalguardianasdefinedinSection4(c).TheSupremeCourtheldthatthewords‘afterhim’inSection6,meantthatifthefatherwasabsentforanyreasonwhatsoever,suchasdesertion,themotherwouldbethenaturalguardianandthatitdidnotmeanafterthelifetimeofthefather.ThethirdjudgeontheBench,BanerjeeJ.heldthat:‘BeitnotedthatgenderequalityisoneofthebasicprinciplesofourConstitutionandintheeventthewords“afterhim”istobereadtomeanadisqualificationofamothertoactasanaturalguardianduringthelifetimeofthefather,thesamewoulddefinitelyruncountertothebasicrequirementoftheConstitution,sincetheConstitutionandthestatutewouldhavetobeinaccordancetherewithandnotdehorsthesame.’
![Page 145: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/145.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 145 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Thecourtspeltoutcertainsituations—(1)whenthefatherisindifferenttowardsthechild,(2)ifthechildisintheexclusivecustodyofthemother,(3)duetophysicalormentalincapacitythefatherisincapableofactingastheguardian,(4)whenitisdecidedmutuallybetweentheparentsthatthemotherwillactastheguardian—themothercouldbedeemedasthenaturalguardian,evenduringthelifetimeofthefather.
Apointtonoteisthatonlywhenthefatherhasabdicatedhisresponsibilityor,byconsent,agreedtoelevatethemothertothestatusofanaturalguardian,wouldthejudgmentcomeintoeffect.However,inkeenlycontestedcustodybattles,thisjudgmentwillnotberelevant.
CustodyRightsofOtherRelatives
Morerecently,wherethemotherhasdiedinunnaturalcircumstancesandthefatherisfacingcriminalcharges,thecourtshavebeeninclinedtograntcustodyorguardianshiptomaternalrelatives.Applyingtheprincipleofbestinterestofthechildisparamount,thecourtshaveupheldtherightofcustodyoftherelativesasagainsttherightofthefather.
InKirtikumarMaheshankarJoshiv.PradipkumarKarunashankerJoshi,477themotherhaddiedundertragiccircumstancesandthefatherwasfacingcriminalchargesunderSection498AofIPC(crueltytowives).Afterherdeath,thechildrenleftthefather’shouseandwenttolivewiththeirmaternal(p.253) uncle,Kirtikumar,whofiledforguardianshipoftheminorchildrenonthegroundthatthefatherwasunfittobetheguardian.Thechildrenwerepresentedbeforethecourtinchamberproceedingsandtheirwisheswereascertained.Thecourtfoundthechildrenintelligentandmorematurethanotherchildrenoftheirage.Boththechildrenwerebitterabouttheirfatherandnarratedvariousepisodesshowingilltreatmentoftheirmother.Theycategoricallystatedthattheywerenotwillingtolivewiththeirfatherandwerehappywiththeirmaternaluncle.Assessingtheirstateofmind,thecourtwasoftheviewthatitwouldnotbeintheinterestsandwelfareofthechildrentohandovertheircustodytothefather.Whileacknowledgingthatthefatherbeinganaturalguardianhasapreferentialrighttothecustodyofhisminorchildren,theSupremeCourtheldthatkeepinginviewthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseaswellasthewishesofthechildren,thecourtwasnotinclinedtohandovercustodytothefather.Thecustodywasretainedwiththematernaluncle.Thefatherwaspermittedtomeetthechildrenonholidaysonpriornotice.Itwaspointedoutthatthefatherwasatlibertytomovethecourtformodifyingtheorder,ifhewonovertheloveandaffectionofthechildren
InShakuntalaSonawanev.NarendraKhaire,478therewasmaritalconflictbetweentheparentsoftheminorchildandthewifehadreturnedtoherparents’housewhenshewaspregnant.Ontheverydayofthebirthofthechild,thehusbandhadfiledadivorcepetitioninthefamilycourtatBandra,Mumbai,onthegroundofcrueltyanddesertion.Duringthependencyoftheproceedings,thecustodyoftheminorchildremainedwiththewife,whowasstayingwithherparents.InFebruary2000,thewifediedundertragiccircumstances.Themother,ShakuntalaSonawane,(thematernalgrandmotheroftheminorchildandthePetitioner)allegedthatthedaughterhadbeensetonfirebythe
![Page 146: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/146.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 146 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
husband,therespondentinthispetition.ThecontentionoftheRespondentwasthatshehadcommittedsuicide.Theminorgrand-daughterwaslookedaftersinceherbirthbythePetitioner.Whileawardingcustodyofthechildtothematernalgrandmother,theBombayHighCourtheld:‘Evenifanaturalguardianisaliveandstakeshis/herclaim,thecourtcanstillproceedtoappointsomeotherfitpersonastheguardianundertheprovisionsoftheAct,afterascertainingthewelfareoftheminor’.
InNilRatanKunduandAnr.v.AbhijitKundu(2008)9SCC413,themotherofthechildhaddiedduetoanunnaturaldeathandthefatherwaschargedunderSection498AofIPCforcrueltyandwasarrested.Theminorchildwasinthecustodyofmaternalgrandparents.Afterhisrelease,hefiledforcustodyandguardianshipandwasawardedcustodybythefamilycourtofCalcuttaandtheCalcuttaHighCourtonthebasisthatthefatheristhenaturalguardianofthechild.ButinappealtheSupremeCourtsetasidetheordersofthelowercourtandheldthatwhiledealingwithcustodycases,isneitherboundbystatutesnorbystrictrulesofevidenceorprocedurenorbyprecedents.Inselectingproperguardianofaminor,theparamountconsiderationshouldbethewelfareandwell-beingofthechild.Thecourtruledthatthewelfareofchildreniscontrollingconsiderationgoverningcustodyofchildrenandnotrightoftheirparents.Ifthechildisoldenoughtoformintelligentdecision,wishesofthechildshouldalsotobeconsideredincustodycases.BothcourtsweredutyboundtoconsiderallegationsagainstthefatherunderthecriminaloffenceofSection498A,IPCandhaveneglectedto(p.254) considertheimportantfactorof‘character’oftheproposedguardian.
InAtharHussainv.SyedSirajAhmed,AIR2010SC1414,theSupremeCourtupheldtheorderoftheKarnatakaHighCourtwhichawardedcustodyoftheminorchildrentothegrandparents.Themotheroftheminorchildrenhaddiedandthechildrenwerebeingbroughtupbygrandparentsandwereattachedtothem.Thecustodywasawardedtothefatherbythefamilycourt,Bangalore,butthehighcourtinappealreversedtheorderandtheparentswerepermittedtoretaincustodyuntiltheissueofguardianshipwasfinallydecided.Thecourtexplainedthatinterimcustodyandguardianshiparetwoentirelydifferentissueswhichareindependentanddistinctfromeachother.WhilethefatherremainsanaturalguardianunderSection19unlessdeclaredunfit,interimcustodyistobeguidedbythesolefactorofwelfareofthechildren.Thecourtcommentedthatwelfareofthechildrendemandsthattheircustodywhichispresentlywiththeirmaternalrelativesshouldnotbedisturbedtillthefinalsettlementoftheirguardianshipissuebythefamilycourt.Irreparableinjurywouldbecausedtothechildrenifthey,againsttheirwill,areuprootedfromtheirpresentsettings.
IssuesofCustodyinMatrimonialDisputes
Incontemporarytimes,themostbitterandacrimoniousbattlesovercustodytakeplaceduringmatrimoniallitigation.Theoldmaxim,fatheristhenaturalguardian,hasgivenwaytothenewermaxim,bestinterestofthechildisparamount.Thisistheprimarypillaronwhichtheissueofcustodyhastobedecided.Thebestinterestmaximoverridesthestipulationsindifferentpersonallawsandisapplieduniversallyinallcustodylitigations.
![Page 147: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/147.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 147 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Evenawife,whohascommittedamatrimonialfault,canbeawardedcustodyofthechildifthecourtcomestoaconclusionthatitisinthebestinterestofthechild,asthecasesalreadydiscussedearlierreveal.Todepriveachildoftenderageofitsmother’sloveandcarewouldnotbeinthebestinterestofthechild,hasbeenthewell-establishedlegaldoctrine.Thecourtshaveheldthattheaimofthelitigationisnottopunishtheguiltybutonlytoensurethewelfareofthechild.Amatrimonialcourtandcounsellorsattachedtoit,aswellaslawyersappearinginthematter,mustensurethatthechildisalwaysthecentreofallnegotiationsovercustodyandthatthisprincipleisneverundermined.Sincethechildremainsunrepresentedinmatrimonialdisputes,itisthedutyofthecourttoensurethatthechild’sinterestsarenotharmedornegated.Courtsdonotviewthechildasanobjecttobetossedaroundbetweenthewarringparents.
Butthedoctrine,bestinterestofthechild,ismorecomplexthanitappearsonthesurface.Whenthefatheriswealthyandthemotherhasnoindependentsourceofincome,wherewouldthebestinterestofthechildlie?Thecourtshaveruledinseveralcasesthatjustbecauseamotherdoesnothavethefinancialresources,itdoesnotmeanthatsheshouldbedeniedcustodyofherchildren.Thesuperiorsocialstatusofthefather,oreventhecharacterandconductofthemother(includinghermatrimonialfaults),cannotbefactorstiltingthebalanceinfavourofthefather.Theonlydeterminingfactorwouldbethecareandconcernshowntowardsthechildasthefollowingcasereveals.
InRaviShankarv.UmaTiwari,479thecouplewasdivorcedthirteenyearspriortothefatherfilingforcustodyofthechildwhowasallalonginthecustodyofthemotheronthegroundthathisgreaterwealthwouldpermithimtobetterprovideforthewelfareofthechild.(p.255) TheMadhyaPradeshHighCourtheldthatinacasewherethefatherclaimscustodyofaminorchild,hemustshowfromhisconductthatheisinterestedinthebettermentandupkeepoftheminor.Thefathermustdemonstratethroughactionthathewouldlookafterthewelfareandsecurityoftheminor,whichwouldbetheparamountconsiderationofthecourt.Inthiscase,forthirteenyearssincehisseparation,thehusbandhaddonenothingtotakecareoftheminororlookafterherinterest,eitherbymonetaryoranyothermeans.Thecourtheldthatthefathercouldnotclaimcustodyofhischildpurelyonthebasisoffinancialstatus.Financialsecuritycanonlybeoneofthecomponentstobeconsideredwhileprovidingfortheoverallwelfareofthechild.Thecourtdismissedthehusband’spleaandretainedthecustodywiththemother.
AsimilarviewwasalsoexpressedbytheBombayHighCourtinAshokShamjibhaiDharodv.NeetaAshokDharode.480Itwasheldthattheaffluenceofthefather,orhisparents,orrelatives,isnotarelevantfactorfordeterminingtheissueofchildcustody.
Whilenon-workingmothersarehauntedbythefearoflackofresources,workingmothersarefacedwithanothersetofanxieties.Wouldawomanwhoisemployedandspendsmostofherwakinghoursoutsideofthehomebeinabetterpositiontolookafterthechild?Recentcaseshaveresolvedthisissue.Ithasbeenheldthatamothercannotbedeniedcustodymerelybecausesheisgainfullyemployed.Thisprinciplehasnowevolvedintoanestablishedrule.
![Page 148: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/148.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 148 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Inmoderndaycustodybattles,neitherthefather,asthetraditionalnaturalguardian,northemother,asthebiologicallyequippedparenttocareforthechildoftenderage,areroutinelyawardedcustody.Theprinciple,bestinterestofthechildtakesintoconsiderationtheexistinglivingarrangementsandhomeenvironmentofthechild.Thecourtsareusuallyhesitanttoremovethechildfromafamiliarenvironmentandhandher/himovertothenon-custodialparents.Eachcasewillbedecidedonitsownmerit,takingintoaccounttheoverallsocial,educational,andemotionalneeds,ofthechild.
Thesimpleprinciplefollowedbythecourtsoncealegalbattlecommencesisusuallytoawardinterimcustodytotheparentwhoalreadyhasthephysicalcustodyofthechildandawardvisitationrightstotheotherparent.Thisisusuallyoverweekendsandschoolvacationssothatthestudiesarenotdisrupted.Itisimportanttorememberthataccesstothenon-custodialparentortherightofvisitationistherightofthechildtoseetheparent,andnotthatoftheparenttoimposeonthechild.
Theroutinemannerinwhichaccessisgrantedtofathersbecomesacauseofconcerntomostwomen.Whiletheystruggletomakeendsmeetandareraisingtheirchildrenagainstgreatodds,thefatherscaneasilywinthechildrenoverbyshoweringthemwithgifts.Whilethemothershavetheresponsibility,thefathersareleftwiththepleasanttaskofrecreationwiththechild.Hence,courtsmustensurethatthefather’seconomicresponsibilitytowardsmaintenanceofchildrenformsapartofthetermsofcustodyandaccess.Inthiscontext,thejudgmentofB.N.Srikrishna,J.,inVinodchandraGajananDeokarv.AnupamaVinodchandra,481(discussedearlier)isanimportantmarker,whereHisLordshipdeniedaccesstothefatherwhohadnotpaidinterimmaintenanceandheldthatuntilthefatherdisplayedevidenceofcontrition,penitence,andreform,andpaidthe(p.256) interimmaintenancearrears,hewillnotbeentitledtovisitationrights.
Inanothercasewhichhasbeenlitigatedoveraverylongperiod,GauravNagpalv.SumedhaNagpal,482whileupholdingthewife’srighttocustody,theSupremeCourtcommentedthatsimplybecausethefatherloveshischildren,andhasnotbeenprovedtobeotherwiseundesirable,itdoesnotnecessarilyleadtotheconclusionthatwelfareofchildrenwouldbebetterpromotedbygrantingthecustodytohim.Childrenarenotmerechattel,noraretheytoysfortheirparents.Thecourtdoesnotgiveemphasisonwhatpartiessubmitbutexercisesitsjurisdictionforthewelfareofminor.Thetermwelfaremustbeconstruedliterallyandmustbeinterpretedinitswidestsense.Though,provisionsofrelevantstatutesmaybetakenintoconsideration,inmattersofcustody,thecourtisentitledtoexerciseitspowerofparenspatriae.Thecourtalsocommentedthatthefatherhadplayedafrauduponthewifebyconcealingthefactofhisearliermarriage,whereinhiswifecommittedsuicidewithinsixmonthsofmarriage.Thehusband’sargumentthatthechildwaslivingwithhimforalongtimeoverlooksthefactthatbyfloutingvariousorders,leadingeventoinitiationofcontemptproceeding,hehasmanagedtoretainthecustodyofchild.Thecourtcommentedthathecannotbeabeneficiaryofhisownwrongs.
IntheproceedingsundertheHinduMarriageAct,thecourtcouldmake,fromtime-to-
![Page 149: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/149.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 149 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
time,suchinterimordersasitmightdeemjustandproperwithrespecttocustody,maintenance,andeducationofminorchildren,consistentlywiththeirwishes,whereverpossible.
Custodyordersarenotpermanentordersandcanbevariedifthechangedsituationsodemands.Evenconsentorderspassedinpetitionsformutualconsentdivorcecanbesubsequentlyvaried.InVikramVirVohrav.ShaliniBhalla,AIR2010SC1675,theSupremeCourtupheldtheorderofthetrialcourtandtheDelhiHighCourt,permittingvaryingtheorderofaccessarrivedinthedivorcepetitionfiledbythespousesjointlyinapetitionfordivorcebymutualconsentandpermittedthechildtobetakentoAustralia.Thecourtcommentedthatthemother’sautonomyonherpersonhoodcannotbecurtailedbyacourtonthegroundofapriororderofcustodyofthechild.Everypersonhasarighttodevelophisorherpotentialandtherighttodevelopmentisabasichumanright.Themothercannotbeaskedtochoosebetweenherchildandhercareer.Sincethemotherandthechildareattachedtoeachother,separatingthechildfromhismotherwillbedisastroustoboth.Themotherwasrequiredtogiveanundertakingthatshewouldabidebytheordertoaccessthehusband.
Thecourtswouldviewanyviolationoftheundertakingseriously.Forinstance,inDavidJudev.HannahGraceJude,AIR2003SC2925,themotherwasallowedtotaketheminorchildtoU.S.A.onanunconditionalundertakingthatshewouldbringthechildbackwheneverthecourtrequiredhertodoso.Butsubsequently,shefloutedtheundertakinganddidnotproducethechildbeforethetrialcourtanddespiteseveralnotices,didnotherselfremainpresentbeforethecourt.ShealsofloutedtheseveralnoticesissuedtoherbytheSupremeCourtincontemptproceedings.TheCourtheldthatherattitudeinnotappearingbeforethecourtwasdefiantandcontemptuousandshewasheldguiltyofcontemptandwasawardedthreemonthsofsimpleimprisonmentandafineofRs50,000.
Thecustodybattletakesaharshertollonwomenduetotheiremotionalvulnerabilityandfinancialdependence.Whilefathersareleft(p.257) freeofallresponsibilities,themothersunilaterallybeartheemotional,social,andfinancialobligations,ofthechildrenduetotheirownsocializationprocess.Attimes,whentheeconomicburdenandprolongedlitigationbecomeunbearable,womensuccumbandgiveupcustody,ratherthanfacethedailyemotionalturmoilforthemselvesandtheirchildren.
Theissueofcustodybecomesevenmorecomplicatedinsituationswherethechildrenarecitizensofaforeigncountryandtheissuebecomesoneofconflictoflaws.483Inthiscontext,theSupremeCourtrulinginSaritaSharmav.SushilSharma484helpstoshedlightonthejudicialapproachestodealingwiththecomplexity.ThechildrenwerecitizensofUSA.ThemotherwasawardedcustodybutwasrestrainedfromremovingthechildrenfromthejurisdictionoftheconcernedcourtinUSA.ThemotherfloutedtheorderandbroughtthechildrentoIndia.Thehusbandhadanarrestwarrantissuedagainstthewife.Inahabeascorpuswritpetitionfiledbyhim,thehighcourtgrantedcustodytothefatherandallowedhimtotakethechildrenbacktoUSA.Inappeal,theSupremeCourtsetasidethehighcourtorderandcommentedasfollows:
![Page 150: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/150.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 150 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
ThedecreepassedbytheAmericancourt,thougharelevantfactor,cannotoverrideconsiderationsofwelfareofminorchildren.ThefatherresidesinUSAwithhismotheragedabout80years.Heappearstobeinthehabitoftakingexcessivealcohol.Itisdoubtfulwhetherthehusbandwillbeabletotakepropercareofthechildren.Welfareofafemalechildlieswithmother.Themotherisnotfoundwantingintakingpropercaseofchildren.Consideringallaspects,itwasnotproperforthehighcourttohaveallowedthehabeascorpuswritpetitiondirectingthemothertohandoverthecustodyofchildrentothefatherandpermithimtotakethemawaytoUSA.SincethehusbandhadanarrestwarrantissuedagainstthewifeinUSAtheSupremeCourtcommentedthatthechancesofthemotherreturningtoUSAwiththechildrenwoulddependuponthejointeffortsofboththepartiestogetarrestwarrantcancelledbyexplainingthecircumstancestotheconcernedcourtinUSA.
Butintwoothercases,ShilpaAggarwalv.AviralMittal,2010Cri.LJ844andDr.V.RaviChandranv.UnionofIndia,2009(14)SCALE27,whichweredecidedsubsequently,wherethechildrenwereforeignnationalsandthemothershadbroughtthechildrentoIndia,theSupremeCourtdirectedthatthechildrenshouldbetakenbackandsubjectedtothejurisdictionoftheirrespectivecountries.TheCourtfurtherruledthatthebestinterestofthechildrenliesinsendingthechildrenbackasthecourtconcernedwiththeissueofcustodywouldbebestsuitedtodecidetheprincipleofwelfareofthechild.Inboththesecasesthemotherslostoutandhadtosendthechildrenbacktothecustodyoftheirfathersanditwasleftforthemotherstoagitatetheissueofcustodyintherespectivecourtsinaforeigncountry.
TraumatisedChildrenandAccessRights
Incaseswhereduetodomesticviolencethemotheriseitherforcedtoleavethematrimonialhomeoristhrownoutofthematrimonialhome,thechildrenandthemotheraremostvulnerableduetothesuddenseparation.Ifthewomanisunabletogetphysicalcustodyofthechildreneitherthroughtheinterventionofthepoliceorsocialworkorganizations,sheiscompelledtoapproachthecourts.Inthesesituations,itisimportanttoaskthatthechildrenbeimmediatelyproducedincourtandtointerviewtheminanon-threateningandnon-intimidatingenvironmentinordertoascertaintheirgenuinewishes.Whenthechildrenarecalledtocourtandaskedtodecideastowhichparenttheyprefertoresidewith,thechildrenarenotinapositiontospeakagainsttheparent(p.258) withwhomtheymayberesiding.Inthesecircumstances,thecourtsmustplayaproactiveroletoensurethatthechildrenfeelsecureandarenotthreatenedbyeitherviolenceagainstthemselvesortheirmother.
Theprincipleofbestinterestofthechildgetsfurthercomplicatedincasesofdomesticviolencewherethechildrenhaveeitherwitnessedincidentsofviolenceagainsttheirmotherorhavethemselvesbeenvictimsofviolence.Childrenrememberandrelivethesemomentsofabuseandthelitigationprocesscontributestokeepingthememoryofviolencealive.Greatersensitivityinsettlingissuesofaccessinthesesituationsshouldbeexercised,sothatthechildisnotfurthertraumatized.Thecourtsinsteadofallowing
![Page 151: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/151.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 151 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
routineaccesstothefather,mustmakeanattempttorebuildthechild’srelationshipwiththefatherthroughshortsupervisedaccesshours.Inthisway,thechild’swishescanbeascertainedandaccesshourscangraduallybeincreased,dependinguponthechild’scomfortlevel.
Anareathathascometolightveryrecentlyistheissueofincestorsexualabuseofchildrenbyfathersandothermalerelatives.Manytimes,thisoccurswithinfamilieswherethereisalreadyamatrimonialdiscord.Attimesthechildrenareabusedasapunitivemeasureagainstthewife.Whileagradualawarenessregardingthisissueisbeginningtosurfacewithinthecontextofcriminallaw,therelevanceofthisissueinfamilylitigationand,inparticular,whiledealingwithissuesofcustodyandaccess,isyetevolve.Somecaseswhichhavecomeupinthecontextofcriminallawarelistedherewiththeviewofcreatingjudicialawarenessevenwithinthecontextoffamilylaw.
InthecaseofPooranRamv.StateofRajasthan,485whenthefatherlookedattheteenagedaughterlustfully,themothercommentedandthefatherbecamerevengeful.Afewdayslater,atnight,hegaggedthedaughterwithherdupattaandrapedher.Thenextdaythedaughterinformedthemotherandwhenthemotherconfrontedthefather,hebeatherruthlessly.Later,acomplaintwasfiled.Inhisdefencethefatherpleadedthattherewasamatrimonialdisputebetweenhimandhiswifeandduetothisshehadfiledafalsecomplaintagainsthim.Thetrialcourtdisbelievedhiscontentionsandconvictedtheaccusedforsevenyears.Inappeal,thecourtcommented:Theaccusedisapsychologicallysadisticpersonandneedspsychologicaltreatment.
Thecourtsdonotalwaystreatthesecasesascasesofurgency.Theprolongedlitigationresultsincausinginjusticetothevictimgirl.In1992,theBombayHighCourtreducedthesentenceofafather,whohadbeenconvictedofrapinghisseven-year-olddaughter,fromlifeimprisonmenttotenyears.Thehighcourtwhilereducingthesentencecommentedsympathetically:
Theappellantisahutmentdwellerandhispovertyhasplacedhiminthedifficultpositionofhavingtosleephuddledupinatinyarea.Eventhoughhiswifehadlefthim,heusedtoworkthewholedayandsendthechildrentoschool,arrangefortheirmealsfromthehotel,providethemwithtoysandpocketmoney,andcookthenightmealforthem.Therapewasamomentarylapse,duetohispatheticsituation(AbdulWahidShaikhv.StateofMaharashtra).
Thisnoteofsympathyandconcerngetsevenshrillerwhenthepartiesbelongtomoreaffluentstrataofsociety.InthecaseofSudeshJhakuv.K.C.J.&Ors,ahigh-rankinggovernmentofficialwaschargedwithindulginginoralsexandfingerpenetrationwithhissix-year-olddaughter.ThepolicerefusedtochargethefatherwiththeoffenceofrapeandinsteadregisteredthecomplaintunderSection377–unnaturaloffence.486(p.259)ThewifefiledawritpetitionintheDelhiHighCourttobringtheoffenceunderthescopeofSection376(rape).Thecourtrejectedthisargumentandheldthatinsertionofobjects,etc.,amountsonlytoviolationofmodesty.
![Page 152: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/152.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 152 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Thelast,N.N.v.P.N.Misc.GP.37/1999decidedon4March1999Bom(unreported)isanunreportedjudgmentoftheBombayHighCourtinachildcustodycase.Thepartiesbelongedtotheaffluentsectionofsociety.Thecaseconcernedmolestationofathree-year-oldbythegrandfather.Thewifeopposedthehusband’spetitionforcustody.Theinterimcustodywasawardedtothemotherbutaccesswasgrantedtothefatherathisresidenceeveryweekforfourhours.Thecommentsbythejudgeconcernedareaneyeopenerregardingjudicialunderstandingofchildsexualabuse:
Primafacie,IamoftheviewthattheallegationswhichtheRespondent(wife)hasmadeagainstthefatherofthePetitionerdonotappeartobetrue.Ijustcouldnotimaginethatthegrandfather,whomustbeofaroundsixtyyearsofage,wouldindulgeinsuchaheinousandpervertacttothechildrenofsuchtenderage.Adoubthaslurkedinmymind.TheRespondenthadatthefirstinstanceallegedthatherminordaughterwasmolestedbutlatersheagainaddedthatboththechildrenweremolested.ThechildrencouldnotspeakevenawordwithmewhenIaffectionatelypattedthemandaskedthemtheirnames.Bothofthemdidnotevenoffertoutteraword.IwasofcourseaskingtheminHindithinkingthattheirmothertonguewasHindi.However,boththeparentstoldmetotalkwiththeminEnglish.ItwasindeedagreatsurprisethatchildrenofthreeandfouryearsofagewerespeakinginEnglish.Thereafter,IspoketotheminEnglish,justputtingaquestiontothemaskingtheirnames.Itisnotasthoughtheywerelookingscaredorafraidoranythingaseventheirparentswerepresent.Itis,therefore,extremelydoubtfultoimaginethatbothofthem,thegirlofthreeandtheboyoffour,wouldhavetoldtheirmotheraboutthesocalledandallegedmolestationonthembytheirgrandfather.Iwonderwhatlanguagetheywouldhaveusedtodescribeasituationofthemolestation.
Thesecommentsclearlyindicatethescepticismandstigmawithwhichsexualabusecasesaremet,eveninthepresentday.Withoutanysemblanceofaninvestigationintothemother’sclaimsofabuse,herallegationswerebrushedasideasanimpossibility.Courtsmustmakeaconcertedefforttoidentifyinstancesofsexualabuse,especiallywhenperpetratedagainstchildren,howeverheinousorunbelievabletheymayseem.Turningablindeyetosexualviolence,especiallywhenperpetratedbyafamilymember,caneasilyplaceachildwithineasyaccess,orevenwithinthecustodyofhisorherabusers.
Issuesofcustody,guardianship,andaccess,cannolongerbeviewedasparentalrights.Thedeterminingprincipleiswelfareofthechildisparamount.Thecourtsmustexercisetheirpowerwithgreatprudenceandcaution,sothatitdoesnotresultinviolationofthebasichumanrightofchildren,therighttolife,whichincludestherighttolivewithoutfearandtrauma.
ConclusionThischapterexaminesthreedistinctrightswhichflowfromthemarriagecontract.Whilethelawsofmarriageanddivorcearegenderneutral,theissueofrightsandobligationsisclearlymarkedwithgenderedassumptions.Maintenanceandmatrimonialpropertyconcerneconomicrightsofwomenanddealwithentitlementstoshelterandsustenance.
![Page 153: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/153.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 153 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Thethirdissuealsoconcernsentitlements,butnotofeconomicnature.
(p.260) Motherhoodisagenderedstatusnotjustinitsbiologybutalsoinitssocialconstruction.Withinitsconfines,awoman’sroleastheprimarycaretakerofherchildrencreatesaneconomicdependency.Butthissociallyprescribedrolehasnoeconomicvalueattachedtoit.Women’sbiologicalstatusasamother,thesocialconstructionofthegenderedrole,andthedependencymotherhoodcreatesforwomen,arefactorswhichcomeintoplaywhiledeterminingwomen’srightstocustodyandguardianshipofthechildren.
Historically,childrenwereviewedasthepropertyofthefather.Hewastheirnaturalguardian,theycarriedhisname,thesonsinheritedhispropertyorweredeemedjointholdersofthepropertyalongwithhim,asinthenotionofcoparcenersorHUFproperty.Producingchildren(morespecificallysons)wasapiousobligationcastuponaHindufather.ThesoilandseeddoctrineoftheancientHindulawviewedthemothermerelyasacarrierofherhusband’sseed.Whilemotherhoodwasdesired,aspired,andrevered,awoman’sclaimoverherchildrenwasnotrecognizedbylaw.Thisnotionprevailedacrossallpersonallaws.Thesectiononchildcustodytracesthestrugglewomenhadtowageforbeingrecognizedasnaturalguardiansoftheirchildren,alongwiththefathers.Butwhileclaimingequalrightsoverchildreninmattersofguardianship,thesocialconstructofthespecificnotionof‘motherhood’andtheconstraintsitimposesuponwomenalsoneedstoberecognizedincustodybattles,beyondthegenderneutralterm‘parenthood’
Ifthenotionofequalityandgenderneutralitycreatesonesetofproblemsforwomen,whengenderiscontextualized,itforegroundsanother.Withinaframeworkofclearlydefinedgenderedroles,whatgetscontextualizedisthewoman’ssexuality,sexualpurity,andsubordinatestatuswithinthemarriage.AsdiscussedinChapter1ofthefirstvolume,whiletracingthehistoryofpersonallaws,thepatriarchalsocialstructurerestsuponnotionsofwomen’ssexualpurityandcontrolofwomen’ssexuality.Asurewayofensuringthisistochastisewomenfortheirsexualmisconductbydenyingthemtheirrights.Iftheentitlementsflowedfromthehusbandtothewife,thenthewife’scapacitytobeentitledtotheseclaimsrestsonhersexualpurity.Wecanclearlyseethistrend,bothinissuesofmaintenanceaswellaschildcustody.Itmustbeconcededthatthepremiseofgenderneutralitywasevolvedtocounterthesegenderedassumptions.Butratherironically,boththepremisesbecomeinadequatewhileaddressingwomen’sconcerns.
Theclaimsofwomentocustodyarelocatedwithintwostatutes,theGuardiansandWardsAct(GWA)andtheHinduMinorityandGuardianshipAct(HMGA).Here,womenhadtochallengethepatriarchalassumptionofnaturalguardianshipoffatherswhilestakingtheirclaim.Gradually,themotherwasawardedlegalrecognitionastheparentbestsuitedtocareforchildrenoftenderage.Thisrecognitionisbasedongenderedassumptionsandisattributedtotheirbiologyandtonature.Butwomenwerecontent,asthisassumptionhelpedthemtowincustodybattlesagainsttheirhusbands,astheirroleasnurturersoftheirchildrenbegantoberecognizedincourtbattles.Laterthisconceptwasexpandedfurtherandwasconvertedintothebestinterestprinciple.
![Page 154: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/154.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 154 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
IndiancourtshavealsoreadtheUnitedNationsDeclarationoftheRightsoftheChildintodomesticstatutesinthecontextofcustodyandguardianship.Byinvokingthisprinciple,dueweightageisgiventothephysical,emotional,andmoralwell-beingofthechild.Further,sincemostwomenareinalowereconomiccategorythantheirhusbands,economicstatusofthepartiesisnotadeterminant.Today,thebestinterestdoctrineappliesoverthedoctrinethatthefatheristhenaturalguardianofthechild.Thisoftenoverridesmaritalfault(p.261) andtheeconomicconstraintsofthepartywhohasbeengrantedcustody.Thisprincipleisapplieduniformlyacrossallpersonallaws.Thishasbeenahardearnedvictory.
However,womenfindthemselvesatadisadvantage,astheeconomicsupportwhichisawardedtothechildismeagre.Beingtheprimarycaretakerofthechildcreatesdependencyandhampersjoboptionsforwomen.Motherhoodissointrinsicallylinkedtowomanhoodthatmostwomenareunwillingtogiveuptheirclaimofchildcustody.Forwomen,itbecomesanissueofemotionalbondingbeyondmererightsandentitlements.Mostwomenviewthemselvesandtheirchildrenasacompositefamilyunitandabondwhichcannotbeseveredatthetimeofdivorce.Hence,generally,womenwillopttoforsakeeconomicadvantagesduringdivorcesettlementstoobtainsolecustodyoftheirchildren.Itisnotthatfathersdonotwishtoobtaincustodyoftheirchildren,butthereasonsfordoingsoaredifferentfromthoseonwhichthemotherstakesherclaims.
Whiletheprinciplebestinterestofthechildworkswellforwomenwhiledeterminingissuesofcustody,itposesproblemswhenaccesstothenon-custodialfatherisawardedonaroutinebasis.Oncethebasicframeworkofawardingcustodyhasbeenevolved,thecourtsapplytheseprinciplesinamechanicalmannerwithoutcontextualizingthespecificityofthesituationorthespecialneedsofchildren.Courtspresumethataccesstothefatherisinthebestinterestofthechild,evenwhenfactsproveotherwise.Forinstance,evenwhendivorcepetitionscontainallegationsofcruelty,physicalabuse,neglectofthechild,orchildbattery,theseallegationsarenotcontextualizedwhiledeterminingtherightofaccess.Grantingaccesstothehusbandinsuchsituationsmaynotbeinthebestinterestofthechild.
Thereisalsothelingeringdiscomfortthatfromhisvantageeconomicposition,thefathercanadverselyinfluencethechildagainstthemotherorwinovertheaffectionofthechildbyshoweringexpensivegiftsand,thus,communicateawrongmessagetothechild.Inmostsituations,thefatherbecomestheindulgentparent,whilethemotherastheprimarycaretakerofthechildisreducedtotheroleofastrictdisciplinarian,whichattimeschildrenbegintoresent.Theloweringoftheeconomicstandardofthewife,inthepostdivorcephase,ascomparedtothemoreaffluentlifestyleofthefather,becomesapointofconstanttensionandworrytosinglemothers,whoaretheprimarycaretakersoftheirchildren.Forthefathers,theissueofaccessbecomesalevertosettlescoreswiththedivorcedwife.Butcourtsareunwillingtoexaminetheissuemoreminutelywhiledecidingtheclaimsofcustodyandaccess.
Worstarethecaseswheretheminorhasbeensubjectedtoincestorhasdevelopedafearpsychosisduetothedomesticconflict.Evenwithoutprovidingcounsellingtodeal
![Page 155: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/155.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 155 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
withthetrauma,ormonitoringthechildduringaccesshours,courtsroutinelygrantaccesstothefather.Attimes,theaccessisovernightormayextendtohalftheschoolvacations.Whilethesemaycauseseriousharmtothechild’semotionalandpsychologicalwellbeing,courtsremainoblivioustoit,evenwhileapplyingthebestinterestprincipleastheunreportedcasesdiscussedreveal.
Inordertosavetheirchildrenfromthisemotionalstress,thereareinstanceswherethemothershavetakendrasticstepsofabscondingandbecomingfugitives.Forinstanceinthecustodybattle,inHemaRavishankerv.K.R.Ravishankar,487themotherwasawardedcustodyandthefatherwasawardedaccess.Sincethecouplelivedintwodifferentcities,theten-year-oldchildwouldhavetotravelandstayovernightwiththefather.Thechildrefused.Thechildalsosufferedfromchronicasthma(p.262) attacksandthemotherwasconcernedthatthetensionwouldinduceanasthmaticattack.Inappealagainsttheinterimorder,thechildwasinterviewedwherethechildmentionedcertainincidentsofsexualmolestationbythegrandfather.Thejudgesdisbelievedhimandheldthatthechildwastutoredandthiswasamereafterthought,sincethisfactwasnotpleadedearlier.Sinceshedidnotcomplywiththeorderofaccess,thewifewasheldforcontempt.Insubsequentproceedingsthecustodywasreversedandwasgrantedtothefather.Atthispointthewifeabscondedwiththechild.Sincethenthemotherandchildhavenotbeenheardof.488
Noncomplianceofanorderofaccessisviewedverysternlyandthewomanrunstheriskofbeingprosecutedforcontemptofcourtandmayalsolosecustodyofthechildasameasureofreprimandingher,astheabovecasereveals.Theseareextremesituationswhichrequiremoresensitivehandlinginordertosavethechildrenfromthesedrasticmeasures.Thecourtscannotabandontheircommitmenttotheprincipleofwelfareoftheminor,eveninsituationswhichposechallengestotheirauthority.Rightofaccessisnotparamountandcannotoverridethebestinterestprinciple.
Thereareseveralinstanceswherethechildrenaretakenoutofthemother’scustodyandareeithertakenoutofthecountryortakentoanotherstate,andwomenaredeprivedofbothcustodyandaccess.Mostoften,womengiveupthelegalpursuitasitbecomesimpossibleforthemtocontinuethelegalbattle.Therearemanywaysinwhichtheirrightscanbefrustrated.Unfortunately,mostwomenlackthefinancialresourcestofollowupthesecasestotheirlogicalendandhauluptheirhusbandsforcontemptofcourtinthesamemannerinwhichthehusbandsareabletodowhentheirwivesflouttheordersofaccess.Sotheygiveupthecourtbattlehalfway.
IntheIndianscenario,whenamanclaimscustodyofhischildren,heneednotassurethecourtthatheiscapableofbeingtheprimarycaretakerofthechild.Allheneedstoassureisthatthereisafemalememberinthehousehold,forexample,amotherorawidowedorunmarriedsister,whowouldplaytheroleoftheprimarycaretaker.Italmostappearsthatthemanclaimscustodyofthechildtosatisfytheurgeofmotheringofhisfemalerelatives.Insuchcases,inanattempttodeprivethemothersofcustody,frequently,allegationsofmentalinstabilityaremadeagainstwomentoprojectthemasunfitmothers.
![Page 156: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/156.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 156 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Thisisacauseofextremeanxietyforwomenbecausetheyruntheriskoflosingnotjustthecustody,buteventherightofaccess.Withinasetupofajointfamily,thecustodybattlesbecomethebattlefieldfortheentirejointfamily.
WhenweexaminetheeconomicentitlementsofwomenintheIndiancontext,weareconfrontedwithaglaringvoidasIndianmatrimonialstatutesdonotprovidefordivisionofpropertyupondivorce.Hence,loweringofeconomicstandardinthepost-divorcephaseisamajorconcernformostwomenduringdivorceproceedings.Underthelegalregimeofseparateproperty,thepropertyacquiredbyeitherspouseduringtheperiodofmarriagecontinuestobetheindividualpropertyofthespousethatacquiredit.Whilesuperficiallyitappearstobeajustandequitablepremise,whenweprobefurtherintotheascribedgenderroleswithinmarriage,itisagivenpremisethatthemanistheprimarybreadwinnerofthefamily,andinordertofacilitatethisprocess,awomanisexpectedtosacrificehercareeranddedicateherselftotallytothetaskoflookingafterthewell-beingofherhusband.Inaddition,(p.263) shemustalsotakeonthetaskofhomemakingandchildbearingandchildrearing.Evenifsheisrequiredorpermittedtowork,itwouldbeonlytoaugmentthefamilyincomeand,hence,herearningsaretreatedasasupplementaryincomeofthefamily.Thecourtswouldpenalizeawomanforpursuinghercareeratthecostofherprimaryroleasthecaretakerofthefamilyandthisinitselfcanconstituteagroundfordivorce(SumanKapurv.SudhirKapur).489Attimes,thechoiceforwomeniseithertoremainmarriedorholdontothejob.Thisisaconcernconfinednotonlytotheprivatedomainofmarriageandfamily,butspillsovertothepublicdomainofemployment,aswehavenoticedintheAirHostesscase,AirIndiav.NergeshMeerza,490inChapter2ofthefirstvolume.
Ratherironically,whilethisisexpectedofthewoman,thisrolehasnoeconomicvalueattachedtoit.Women’scontributiontothedomestichouseholdduringthesubsistenceoftheirmarriagedoesnotgetanyrecognitionunderthematrimonialstatutes.Thepropertyacquiredbythehusbandistreatedashisexclusiveproperty.Sincemarriageisnotviewedasaneconomicpartnership,awomanisnotentitledtoclaimdivisionofpropertyatthetimeofdivorce.Thecontributionofthewifeincreatingtheseassetsbyperformingdomesticchoresisnotconsideredasarelevantfactor.
Sinceonlynon-workingwomenorwomenwhoareunabletosustainthemselveswiththeirownearningsareentitledtomaintenance,mostworking/professionalwomenloseoutontheireconomicrights.Theyareperceivedtobeindependentwomenwhoarenotinneedoffinancialsupport.
Whenpropertyisboughtbysecuringbankloans,sincethehusbandistheprimaryearningmember,hewillhavethetitletotheproperty.Inmostcases,womenarenotevenawareoftheseassets.ThesituationisevenmorecomplexasthenotionofHinduUndividedFamily(HUF)propertystillprevails.ThehusbandmayhaveashareintheHUFassetsorbusinessesconductedinthenameandtitleoftheHUF,butthewiveswillnothaveaccesstothisinformation.Determiningthehusband’sshareinsuchpropertyandthendividingitbetweenthespousesisadauntingtaskwhichmostcourtsdonotventureintointhecourseofamatrimoniallitigation.Thereisnoclearmandatefor
![Page 157: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/157.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 157 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
matrimonialcourtstoordersaleofmatrimonialproperty,partitionofjointfamilypropertyorforjudicialreapportionmentonthebasisoffairnessindivorcesettlements.
WithintheseparatepropertyregimethatisfollowedinIndia,thereisnoacknowledgementforthenon-financialcontributionofthewifethroughhouseholdlabour.Shedoesnotacquireanyright,title,orinterest,intheassetsacquiredbythehusbandduringthesubsistenceofthemarriage.Intheeventofdissolutionofthemarriagebythehusbanddyingintestate,thewidowiseligibleforashareofherhusband’sproperty,accordingtotherulesofthepersonallawgoverningthem.Thepersonallawsofmostcommunitiesaccordthewifeastatusnohigherthanthatofthechildren,thus,completelyignoringhercontributiontothehouseholdandfamilyintheformofunpaidwork.Sheistreatedasabeneficiary,withnoclaimsoverthedeceasedhusband’sestate,andcouldbewilledoutofhisestateshouldhewishtodoso(Shankaran2008:265).
Awomancanclaimashareonlyinpropertywhichispurchasedintheirjointnames.Thisisaspertherulesgoverninggeneralpropertylaws.EventheprovisionsofSection27ofHMAthataddressestheissueofpropertyiscladinquaintandobscurelanguageasproperty(p.264) presentedonoraboutthetimeofmarriageand,hence,propertyacquiredbytheirownindividualeffortsandnotgiventothematoraboutthetimeofmarriagetobeheldjointly,wouldnotbepropertycoveredbySection27ofHMA.InKamalakarGaneshSambhusv.MasterTejasKamalakarSambhus,491eventhoughthewifeestablishedthatshehadcontributedhalftheamounttowardstheconstructionofthehouseproperty,thecourtheldthatthiscouldnotbethesubjectmatterofanorderunderSection27oftheHinduMarriageAct,andsetasidetheorderofthefamilycourtonthesegrounds.
Inrecenttimes,therightofresidenceinthematrimonialhomeisprotectedbythePWDVA.Whilethisisanimportantdevelopment,forawomanwhowantstooptoutofthemarriagethisisaverysmallconsolation.Here,too,womenhavelostoutifthematrimonialhomestandsinthenameofthehusband’sparentsorcollateralrelativesasthecasesdiscussedabovereveal.Thereisnoconceptofadesertedwoman’srightsinequityorthenotionofconstructivetrustthroughwhichLordDenninghadprotectedtherightsofdesertedwomen,notonlyagainstthehusbandbutalsoagainsthiscreditors.Hence,undertheIndianstatutes,divorcedwomenarenotprotectedfromevictionfromthelandlords.InthepathbreakingrulingoftheSupremeCourt,inB.P.AchalaAnandv.S.AppiReddy,492thecourtawardedlegalrecognitiontothewoman’srightofresidenceandplacedherinthepositionofasub-tenant,awardinghertherighttobeapartytoalitigationwhichwoulddepriveherrightofpossessionofthematrimonialhome.But,whileimportantproclamationsweremadeinthisrulingregardingwomen’srighttothematrimonialhome,thewomanconcerneddidnotbenefitfromitasshehadalreadybeendivorcedandbecausethetermsofdivorcesettlementdidnotincludeaprovisionregardingthedwellinghome.Hence,theapexcourtruledthatshehadnorighttothematrimonialhome.
ThispositionwasaffirmedbytheSupremeCourtinanotherruling,RumaChakrabortyv.SudhaRaniBanerji,493whereadivorcedwomanandherchildrenwereevictedfrom
![Page 158: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/158.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 158 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
theirhome,whichwasrentedinthehusband’sname,onthepretextthattheirrightoftenancywasterminatedwiththedivorceinwhichthewife’srighttoresidenceinthematrimonialhomehadnotbeennegotiated.Thecourtstatedthatalthoughtherighttomatrimonialhomeexistsforadesertedwoman,thesamecannotbeextendedtoadivorcedwoman.
Thesejudgmentsreflectthesocietalprejudicesagainstwomen’srightofpropertyownership.In1980,theInternationalLabourOrganization(ILO)calculatedthatwomendotwo-thirdsoftheworld’swork,for5–10percentoftheincome,andownonepercentoftheassets.ProfessorShivaramayya(1999:xiii),inhispioneeringworkonmatrimonialproperty,hasattributedthelowownershipofpropertybywomenintheworldtothesocialandlegalfailuretorecognizemarriageasaneconomicpartnership.Accordingtohim,thedisproportionateholdingofassetsoccursprimarilyforthreereasons:
1.Lawandpoliciesofthestatesdonotrecognizedomesticworkasproductivework–evenMarxdoesnot;2.Natureandnurtureburdenwomenwithbearingandrearingofchildren.Theyarefrequentlyforcedtogiveuptheircareerstolookaftertheirhomes;3.Evenwhenwomentakeupjobs,theyareconfinedtorelativelylow-paidones.
(p.265) Whenthetheoryofano-faultdivorcewasintroducedinthe1970s,mostcountriesfollowingthecommonlawtradition,includingEngland,introducedtheconceptofdivisionofmatrimonialassetsatthetimeofdivorce.Englandstartedofftentativelywiththeruleofonethirdallocation,oraneedbasedsettlement,buthasgraduallymovedtotheprincipleofequaldistribution.InUSA,Canada,andNewZealand,theprinciplegoverningpropertydistributionisequaldivision.Butjudgesalsohavethepowertousediscretiontoensurefairness.InAustralia,intheabsenceofclearguidancejudicialdiscretionplaysagreaterrole.OthercountriessuchasMalaysiaandSingaporehavealsoalteredtheirlawsmorerecentlyinthe1990stoincludethenotionofpropertysettlementupondivorce.
Thetendencyinmostcountriesseemstobetomoveawayfromdependencyandneed,toatheoryofcleanbreak,afterwhichthepartiesarefreetomoveoninlife.Maintenancesignifiesdependency,whichhasnoplaceinthegenderneutralterminologyofdivorcetheoriesthatareprevalentinmostcountries.So,evenwhenmaintenanceisawarded,itappearsmorelikeapropertysettlement.Butthistheoryofequalityismorearhetoricthanareality,andseveralstudieshavebroughtoutthepovertydivorcebringsuponwomen,despitetheclaimtopropertydistribution.
ThereareseveralstudiesconductedintheUnitedStatesandAustraliainthe1980s,toassesstheimpactoftheno-faultdivorceandpropertysettlementonwomenwhicharediscussedinthesectiononmatrimonialproperty,whichconfirmthis.Inparticular,singlemothersandolderwomenlivingalonepost-divorcecanexperienceadrasticfallinlivingstandards,withmanybecoming(andremaining)poor,alongwiththeirchildren.Thiseconomicvulnerabilityofwomenpost-separationcanbeattributedtoacombinationofsocialandeconomicfactors,manyofwhichoperateindependentlyofmarriage.These
![Page 159: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/159.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 159 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
factorsincludewomen’sweakerpositioninthelabourmarketandtheirrelativelylowerearningscomparedwithsimilarlysituatedmen.WhilethiscommentwasmadeinastudytoassesstheimpactofdivorceuponAustralianwomen(Funder1986;McDonald1986)theanalysisisequallyrelevantforothercountries.
Otherfactorsrelatemorespecificallytotherolesthatwomenadoptduringandaftermarriage.Forexample,duringmarriagethecouplemaydecidethatthehusband’sincomeearningcapacitywillbepromotedwhilethewifeassumesgreaterresponsibilityforcaringforchildrenandhomemaking.Giventheneedsofchildrenandmen’susuallyhigherearningcapacity,thisarrangementcanworkwelluntilthemarriageends.Upondivorceorseparation,thecostsofthisdivisionoflabourduringthemarriage,suchaslossofimmediateearningsandreducedabilitytoearninthefuture,placethesewomenineconomicallyprecariouscircumstancespost-separationanddivorce(Funder1992).
Thelinkagesbetweenawoman’sclaimofchildcustodyandthedependencyitcreateswhileevolvingaframeworkforpropertydivision,posesachallengetotheequalitymodelofmarriageaspartnershipandneedsfurtherdeliberationswhileevolvingablueprintbasedonjusticeandequity.Afeministlegalargumentinthesecountireshasbeenthatequalitymodelisinadequateanddoesnottakeintoconsiderationtheneedsofwomenwhohavetheadditionalresponsibilityofcaringfortheirchildrenwhichdiminishestheirchancesofgettingbackintothejobmarket.Herethemorerecentargumentshasbeenthatinadditiontocontribution,theneedordependencyshouldalsobekeptinviewwhilearrivingatpropertysettlementterms.Incontrast,inIndia,westillsubscribetothenotionofadependentwife(p.266) whereneedandfaultplayagreaterrolewhileawardingmaintenance.Withinthisframeworkthecontributiongetstotallyexcludedfromjudicialassessmentandthecourtsdonothavethepowertosettlethehusband’spropertyinfavourofthewifeindivorceproceedings.Inaddition,asProfSivarammayahascommented,theexistinglawswhichaddressissuesofpropertysettlementaredisparate,chaotic,andscattered(1999:20).
Whatisratherironicinthisentirediscussiononpropertyclaimsisthatwhilemaintenanceisinherentlyproblematic,asitdoesnottakeintoaccountawoman’snon-financialcontributiontothemarriagethroughhouseworkandchildcare,takingtheneedfactortotallyoutofthepurviewofdivorcesettlementshasnotbeenofgreatvaluetowomen.TheEnglishcaselawdiscussedinthissectionalsobringoutthefactorthatneedalonedoesnotsuffice,andforwealthywomenthepremisecanbederogatory.
IntheIndiancontextthediscussionisconfinedtothelimitedscopewithinthestatutoryprovisionsofmaintenancedespiteitsderogatoryconnotations(reflectingwomen’ssubordinatestatuswithinmarriage)asitremainstheonlyavenueforwomentostaketheirclaimoffinancialentitlementupondivorce.Formostwomen,thisentitlementformsthecentralcoreoftheirmatrimonialdispute.Itisfareasiertocometoanamicableagreementregardingdivorceandcustodywhilemaintenanceremainsadisputedquestion.Thewidelycontestednatureofthemaintenanceprovisionmakesitacomplexterrainofmatrimoniallitigation,withseveralsubstantiveandproceduralaspectswovenintoit,andencompassesbothcivilandcriminalprocedures.
![Page 160: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/160.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 160 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
Curiously,thecoreofthiseconomicdisputedoesnotrevolvearoundquestionsoffinancialarrangementsofthefamilyunit,buthingesuponissuesofsexualmores.Inthecontextofunequalpowerrelationsprevailingwithinpatriarchalnormativemarriages,women’seconomicrightsaredeterminedinthecontextofsexualnormsandcodes.Withinthisparadigm,itreallydoesnotmatterwhetherwomenarepromiscuous,ormenbigamous.Theendresultisthesame,denialofeconomicrightsofwomen.Ascanbeobserved,thenormofmonogamycanbefloutedwithimpunitybyhusbandsand,toaddinsulttoinjury,laterduringlitigation,thefactofabigamousmarriagecanbeusedasanarmourtodefeatwomen’sclaims.Thispleaisadvancedsoroutinely,thattheSupremeCourtinVimalav.Veeraswamy,494wasconstrainedtoholdthatwhenahusbandpleadsthatthemarriageisbigamous,thepreviousmarriagewouldhavetobestrictlyproved.Inasimilarmanner,theBombayHighCourtdismissedthepleaofbigamousmarriage,inRajlinguv.Sayamabai,495asamereafterthought.
Thisleavesusperplexedastohowamatrimonialmisconductorguiltcanbeflagrantlyinvokedbyahusbandtodefeatthewoman’seconomicclaim,withoutanyadversecriminalorcivilconsequencesvisitinghimduringcourtproceedings.Thistypeoffloutingofalegalmandateanditssubsequentinvocationtogainafinancialedgeagainstavulnerablepersoncantakeplaceonlywithinablatantlysexistsocialorder.
Despitetheprogressiveinterpretationsandinnovativelegalmaxims,thepathtojusticehasnotprogressedinalineartrajectory.Forexample,theBombayHighCourtrulingdeliveredbyM.H.KaniaJ.,waybackin1976.Whiledecidingtherightsofawomaninabigamousmarriage,hisLordshiphadheldthatsincetheHinduMarriageActisasociallegislation,itcouldnothavebeentheintentionofthelegislaturethateveninacase(p.267) whereaHinduwomanwasdupedintocontractingabigamousmarriage,sheshouldbedeprivedofherrighttoclaimmaintenance(Govindraov.Anandibai).496InstarkcontrastistheSupremeCourtrulingin2005,inSavitabenSomabhaiBhatiyav.StateofGujarat,497wheretherightofmaintenancewaslitigatedunderSection125ofCr.PC,aprovisionenactedtoensuresocialjusticeandpreventvagrancy.Here,ArijitPasayatJ.,andS.H.KapadiaJ.,commentedthathoweverdesirableitmaybetotakenoteoftheplightoftheunfortunatewoman,thelegislativeintentbeingclearlyreflectedinSection125ofCr.PC,thereisnoscopeforenlargingitbyintroducinganyartificialdefinitiontoincludewomannotlawfullymarriedintheexpressionwife.Thecourtfurthercommentedthatitisinconsequentialthatthemanwastreatingthewomanashiswife.Itistheintentionofthelegislaturewhichisrelevantandnottheattitudeoftheparty.
ChinnappaReddyJ.,aformerjudgeoftheSupremeCourtcommentedinthiscontext:ThecourtcouldprobablyextendthemeaningtobegiventothewordwifeinSection125(1)toanywomanwhohasgonethrougharecognizedformofmarriage,notwithstandingthesubsistenceofanearliermarriage.AfurtherquestionmayrequireconsiderationastowhetheracommonlawwifeisalsoentitledtomaintenanceunderSection125oftheCr.PC(Reddy2008:122).
Confrontedwithcontradictoryviewpointsregardingthecriterionfordeterminingthelegislativeintentofabeneficialprovision,whatarethecrutchesthattrialcourtjudges
![Page 161: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/161.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 161 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
haveattheirdisposalwhiledeliveringconstitutionaljustice.A.K.SikriJ.andArunaSureshJ.haveattemptedtoprovideananswer:‘Wherealternativeconstructionsarepossiblethecourtmustgiveeffecttothatwhichwillberesponsibleforthesmoothworkingofthesystemforwhichthestatuehasbeenenactedratherthantheonewhichwouldputhindrancesinitsway.Ifthechoiceisbetweentwointerpretations,thenarrowerofwhichwouldfailtoachievethemanifestpurposeofthelegislationshouldbeavoided.WeshouldavoidaconstructionwhichwouldreducethelegislationtofutilityandshouldacceptthebolderconstructionbasedontheviewthatParliamentwouldlegislateonlyforthepurposeofbringingaboutaneffectiveresult.’
Inthistusslebetweentheoldworld,feudalvaluesystemsreflectedintheancientHindulaw,thelawoftheSmritis,alongsidepluralistictraditionsvalidatedbycustoms,atoneend,andthenewerstatutoryprovisionsofthemoderncodifiedHindulaw,attheother,whataretheavenuesforharmoniousconstructionsoflegalprinciples?HowdowerevisittheprovisionsoftheancientHindulawinthecontextofitsmoderndaydistortions,withinthestatutoryframeworkofcontemporaryHindulaw,whiledeliveringjustice?Thesamebench,comprisingofA.K.SikriJ.andArunaSureshJ.haveprovidedcertaintoolsofinterpretationsinthisrespect:‘TheprinciplesofHinduPersonalLawhavedevelopedinanevolutionarywayoutofconcernforallthosesubjecttoitsoastomakefairprovisionagainstdestitution.Thereisclearevidencetoindicatethatthelawofmaintenancestemsoutoftheseculardesireandsoastoachievethesocialobjectivesformakingbareminimumprovisiontosustainthemembersofrelativelysmallersocialgroups.Organicallyandoriginallythelawitselfisirreligious.Itsfountainspringishumanistic.Initsoperationalfieldalthoughitlaysdownthepermissiblecategoriesunderitsbenefaction,whicharesoentitledeitherbecauseofthetenetssupportedbyclearpublicpolicyor(p.268)becauseoftheneedtosubservethesocialandindividualmoralitymeasuredformaintenance.
Beyondprotectionofindividualrights,thecourtsalsohaveamandatetoevolvethescienceofjurisprudenceasitwasbroughttoournoticebyS.B.SinhaCJ.,RameshMadhavBapatJ.andN.V.RamanaJ.oftheAndhraPradeshHighCourt,inthefollowingwords:‘Theinterpretationoflawisnotmerelyforthedeterminationofaparticularcasebutalsointheinterestoflawasascience.Assuch,interpretationoflawmustbeinaccordancewithjustice,equity,andgoodconscience,andmoreso,infurtheranceofjustice.Ifthecourtprimafaciecomestotheconclusionthattheplaintiff/petitionerisentitledtointerimmaintenance,itcanawardinterimmaintenanceintheinterestofjustice,withoutbeingfetteredbyorthodoxprejudices,byshowingliberalreadinesstomovewithtimes.
Thiscalltomovewiththetimesandblendtheancientwiththemoderninpursuitofjusticeisthecallofduty.Thejudicialoathmandatesthis.TheprimaryaimofthecourtsistodojusticeasP.N.BhagwatiJ.andRanganathMisraJ.,hadsuccinctlypointedout:‘Theroleofthecourtisnotthatofsilentspectatororofapassiveagency.Whenadisputeisbroughtbeforethecourtwheremaintenanceofaneglectedwifeoraminorchildisinissue,thecourtmusttakegenuineinteresttofindoutthetruthofthematter.Ifthe
![Page 162: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/162.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 162 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
magistratehadaskedproperquestionstothewitnesseswhentheywerebeforehimanddeposingaboutthemarriage,therelevantevidencewouldhavecomeupbeforethecourt.Itwasthedutyofthelawyerappearingfortheappellantalsotohaveplayedhisroleproperlyattherighttime.Duetothisjudicialandprocedurallapse,acaseforapittanceofmaintenance,filedin1971,hadtobesentbackfromtheSupremeCourttothemagistrate’scourtforretrialin1985.498
Withinthisframeworkofthecallofdutyandjudicialmandate,Iamconstrainedtoendthissectionwiththeframeworkprovidedtousin1978byyetanotherBenchoftheSupremeCourtcomprisingoflegalluminaries,V.R.KrishnaIyerJ.andD.A.DesaiJ.:‘Thebroodingpresenceoftheconstitutionalempathyfortheweakersectionslikewomenandchildrenmustinforminterpretationifithastohavesocialrelevance.Soviewed,itispossibletobeselectiveinpickingoutthatinterpretationoutoftwoalternativeswhichadvancesthecause–thecauseofthederelicts.499
Notes:
(1)Thisisalegaltermindicatingthatitisasupplementary,subsidiary,oradditionalrelief,butcannotbethemainreliefinamatrimonialpetition.
(2)Seesectiontitled‘LocatingWomen’sClaimswithintheConstitutionalDomain’ofChapter2ConstitutionalLawandCitizenshipClaimsofthefirstvolumeforfurtherdiscussiononspecialprovisionsforwomenandchildrenunderArticle15(3)oftheConstitution.
(3)AIR1978SC1807
(4)Article39(a)directsthestatetoprovideadequatemeansoflivelihoodtomenandwomen.
(5)AIR1987Ker110
(6)AIR1975SC83
(7)Thissectionwasre-numberedasSection125aftertheCr.PCwasre-enactedin1973.
(8)(1991)2SCC375
(9)I(2008)DMC22SC
(10)II(2008)DMC838SC
(11)Blackstone’sCommentaries,VolIII,94
(12)Blackstone’sCommentaries,VolI,430
(13)See‘MuslimWomen’sRighttoMaintenance’later.
![Page 163: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/163.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 163 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(14)Forfurtherdiscussiononthisissueseesectiontitled‘InterimMaintenance’inSectionBofthischapter.
(15)SeethecommentsoftheJharkhandHighCourt,inEhsanAnsariv.StateofJharkhand,II(2007)DMC751Jha,wheretheprayertoamendthepetition,areliefwhichispermissibleundercivillawbutprohibitedunderCriminallaw,wasallowed.Whileallowingtheprayer,thecourtcommentedthatproceedingsunderSection125Cr.PCarenotstrictlycriminaltheyaremoreinthenatureofcivilproceedings.
(16)LawCommission132ndReport,19April1989.
(17)VideW.B.Act25of1992(w.e.f.2August1993).
(18)VideMahAct21of1999,Section2(w.e.f.20April1999).
(19)ActNo.50of2001,whichcameintoeffecton24September2001.
(20)I(2003)DMC440P&H
(21)Seesectiontitled‘RightsofWomeninInformalRelationships’forfurtherdiscussiononthisissue.
(22)Seethediscussiononexecutionproceedingslater.
(23)Theamendmentdoesnothavearetrospectiveeffect.InShailKumariDeviv.KrishanBhagwanPathak@KishunB.PathakII(2008)DMC363SC,theSupremeCourthasheldthatmaintenanceaboveRs500permonthcanbeawardedonlyfromthedatefromwhichtheamendmentcameintoeffect,andnotfromanearlierdate.
(24)Seesectiontitled‘MuslimWomen’sRighttoMaintenance’laterforfurtherdiscussiononthisprovision.
(25)Seesectiontitled‘RightsofWomeninInformalRelationships’laterwherethisissueisdiscussedindetail.
(26)(1947)AllER847
(27)Manbyv.Scott,(1600)Smith’sLeadingCases
(28)AIR1970J&K150
(29)AIR1960Cal575
(30)AIR1985Bom.88
(31)AIR1986Guj6
(32)1990Cri.LJ2430AP
![Page 164: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/164.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 164 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(33)AIR1986Raj13
(34)II(1997)DMC212Cal
(35)AIR2005Ori3
(36)(1956)2Mad.LJ289
(37)II(1999)DMC411Ker
(38)1993CriLJ238
(39)II(2003)DMC275Ori
(40)1980Cri.LJ354
(41)1993CriLJ238
(42)I(2001)DMC313All
(43)I(2001)DMC229All
(44)I(2007)DMC779Del
(45)II(2007)DMC820Del
(46)II(2003)DMC688P&H
(47)II(2003)DMC640Gau
(48)I(2008)DMC425Jha
(49)AIR1957All658
(50)AIR1965Ori154
(51)I(2000)DMC338SC
(52)II(2003)DMC344Ker
(53)I(2002)DMC495P&H,II(2007)DMC273P&H
(54)II(2008)DMC19Ker
(55)AIR1987SC1049
(56)(2005)4SCC449
(57)II(1999)DMC693AP
![Page 165: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/165.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 165 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(58)I(2001)DMC763SC
(59)2004MLR609Mad
(60)II(2001)DMC454AP
(61)I(2007)DMC421Ker
(62)II(1999)DMC693AP
(63)II(2008)DMC462Cal
(64)AIR1999SC3348:2000Cr.LJ1SC
(65)I(2003)DMC458
(66)II(1993)DMC162SC:AIR1993SC2295
(67)II(2000)DMC90AP,2004MLR231MP
(68)II(2002)DMC530Raj
(69)II(2005)DMC814Del
(70)I(2006)DMC48Cal
(71)I(2006)DMC83AP
(72)I(2006)DMC793Cal
(73)I(2003)DMC627SCinthiscaseitwasheldthatdirectingthewifetoundergomedicalexaminationtodisprovetheallegationsofmentaldisorderdoesnotviolateArticle21oftheConstitution(RighttoLifewhichincludesRighttoLifewithdignity)andalsoheldthatadverseinferencecanbedrawnagainstherifthewiferefusestocomplywiththedirection.
(74)I(2006)DMC19All
(75)I(2006)DMC27SC
(76)II(2002)DMC634Pat
(77)II(2008)DMC341Guj
(78)I(2007)DMC756Mad
(79)I(2007)DMC246AP
(80)I(2008)DMC249HP
![Page 166: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/166.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 166 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(81)AIR2004SC3500
(82)II(2006)DMC461Bom
(83)I(2003)DMC214Ori
(84)Thisissuehasbeendiscussedindetailinthepreviouschapterunder‘RightsofMarriedMinorstoMaintenance’inthesectiontitled‘MarriageofMinors’.
(85)AIR1999SC3348:2000Cr.LJ1SC
(86)I(1994)DMC115Bom
(87)TheSupremeCourtrulingonconvictionforbigamywhicharereferredherearethefollowing:BhauraoShankerLokhandev.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1965SC1564;KanwalRamv.TheH.P.Administration,AIR1966SC614;PriyaBalaGhoshv.SureshChandraGhosh,AIR1971SC1153;LingariObulammav.L.VenkataReddy,AIR1979SC848.Inthesecasesitwasheldthattoprovethesecondmarriage,itisessentialtoprovethatsaptapadiwasperformed.
(88)II(1999)DMC318Raj
(89)Anacceptableformofinformalmarriage.Thetermappliesspeciallytothesubsequentmarriageofadivorceewoman.Themarriageceremonyisinformalandsincethegirlisnotvirgin,saptapadiisnotperformedduringthemarriage.
(90)2000Cri.LJ332Pat
(91)2004MLR231MP
(92)II(2001)DMC435SC
(93)II(2003)DMC723Del
(94)II(2004)DMC319Cal
(95)I(2002)DMC248Ori
(96)II(2006)DMC307Bom
(97)ParasDiwanandPiyushiDiwan,LawofMarriageandDivorce,Delhi:UniversalLawPublishingCo.Ltd.,1997(3rdEdn)p.92.
(98)(1978)KerLT26
(99)II(2001)DMC13Ker
(100)II(2006)DMC273Ker
![Page 167: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/167.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 167 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(101)I(2006)DMC386Bom
(102)Section4:Overridingeffectoftheact–saveasotherwiseexpresslyprovidedinthisAct,a)Anytext,ruleorinterpretationofHindulaworanycustomorusageaspartofthatlawinforceimmediatelybeforethecommencementofthisactshallceasetohaveeffectwithrespecttoanymatterforwhichprovisionismadeinthisact.
(103)I(2009)DMC164SC
(104)Section5(i)oftheHinduMarriageActstipulatesthatneitherpartyshouldhaveaspouselivingatthetimeofthemarriage.Seesectiontitled‘ConsequencesofMonogamy’inChapter1PersonalLawsandWomen’sRightsofthefirstvolumeforadetaileddiscussiononthisissue.
(105)AIR1976Bom433
(106)(1991)2SCC375
(107)I(2001)DMC354Mad
(108)I(2002)DMC136Bom
(109)AIR2004Bom283:II(2004)DMC321
(110)AIR2005SC1809:I(2005)DMC503SC
(111)I(2006)DMC203Bom
(112)I(2007)DMC451AP
(113)I(2001)DMC204All
(114)I(2008)DMC719Del
(115)I(2008)DMC529Del
(116)Section29(2)ofHinduMarriageAct,1955.
(117)I(2001)DMC110MP
(118)Thisisacustomarypracticeamongcertaincommunities.GonaorGownisperformedafterthemarriage,beforethegirlissentofftoherhusband’shomeforconsummationofmarriageorsexualcohabitation.Thesectiontitled‘MarriageofMinors’inthepreviouschapterhasareferencetothiscustom.
(119)I(2005)DMC1SC
(120)II(2002)DMC54AP
![Page 168: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/168.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 168 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(121)Seesectiontitled‘ValidityofCustomaryLaws’ofChapter1PersonalLawsandWomen’sRightsofthefirstvolumewherethisissuehasbeendiscussedindetail.
(122)AIR1987Bom182
(123)(1989)2SCC526
(124)II(2000)DMC724MP
(125)AIR1982Bom231
(126)DMCI(2000)579Kar
(127)I(2003)DMC430Mad
(128)Aftertheamendmentin2001,thisremedyhasbeenincorporatedintotheDivorceActunderSection10AoftheAct.So,aChristiancouplecannowavailoftheremedyofdivorcebymutualconsent.Seesectiontitled‘ChristianLawofMarriageandSuccession’ofChapter1PersonalLawsandWomen’sRightsofthefirstvolumewherethisissueisdiscussedindetail.
(129)AIR1994SC133:I(1994)DMC484SC
(130)II(1998)DMC503Kar
(131)I(2000)DMC164SC
(132)II(2001)DMC(DB)242Kar
(133)AIR2007MP242
(134)Natraisaformofcustomaryremarriageofdivorceesorwidowswhichislessformalthanthefirstmarriagebutcarrieswithitcontractualobligationsasinamarriage.CustomarydivorcesandnatramarriagesareacceptedcustomarypracticesamongmanylowercastesandtribesofNorthIndianstatessuchasRajasthan,MadhyaPradesh,UttarPradesh,etc.
(135)I(2002)DMC90Mad
(136)II(2000)DMC278Mad
(137)II(2005)DMC567Kar
(138)I(2003)DMC1SC
(139)II(2008)DMC177Bom
(140)AIR1961SC1334
![Page 169: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/169.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 169 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(141)I(2000)172DMCMad
(142)AIR2007Ker246
(143)I(2000)DMC392MP
(144)AIR1929PC135
(145)I(2008)DMC529Del
(146)Section18(2)(e)ofHAMAentitledaHinduwifetoliveseparatelyfromherhusbandwithoutforfeitingherclaimtomaintenance,ifherhusbandkeepsaconcubineinthesamehouseinwhichhiswifeislivingorhabituallyresideswithaconcubineelsewhere.
(147)AIR1978SC1557
(148)I(2000)DMC51Kar
(149)II(2002)DMC791Bom
(150)I(2007)DMC396Bom
(151)(2005)2SCC244
(152)Thiscasehasbeendiscussedundersectiontitled‘LegalIncidentsofMarriage’inChapter1MarriageanditsDissolution.
(153)II(2001)DMC693Bom
(154)I(2003)DMC265Jha
(155)I(2005)DMC437Jha
(156)I(2008)DMC461Pat
(157)I(2008)DMC421Ker
(158)I(2008)DMC148P&H
(159)AIR1999SC3348:2000Cr.LJ1SC
(160)2000Cri.LJ332Pat
(161)AIR2008Mad162
(162)WP-Crl425/2008(decidedon7April2008)Del.
(163)Seesectiontitled‘ConstitutionalValidityofPersonallaws’ofChapter2ConstitutionalLawandcitizenshipClaimsofthefirstvolumewherethisissueis
![Page 170: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/170.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 170 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
discussedindetail.
(164)ArabA.Abdullav.ArabM.Saiyadbhai,AIR1988Guj141;Ahmedv.Aysha,II(1990)DMC110:1987CriLJ980;K.Zunaideenv.AmeenaBegum,II(1997)DMC91;KarimAbdulRehmanShaikhv.ShehnazKarimShaikh,2000Cri.LJ3560.
(165)2001(7)SCC740:2001Cri.LJ4660SC:II(2001)DMC714SC
(166)Seesectiontitled‘InnovativeJudicialInterpretationoftheMuslimWomen’sAct’ofChapter2ConstitutionalLawandCitizenshipClaimsofthefirstvolumewherethisissueisdiscussedindetail.
(167)2000Cri.LJ3560
(168)I(2007)DMC820Ker
(169)II(2007)DMC215Ker
(170)I(2000)DMC229Ker
(171)II(2008)DMC575Ker
(172)2002(7)SCC518
(173)Thesecaseshavebeendiscussedindetailundersectiontitled‘IslamicLawofMarriageandSuccession’inChapter1PersonalLawsandWomen’sRightsofthefirstvolume.
(174)II(2008)DMC225Pat
(175)II(2008)DMC332Bom
(176)II(2008)DMC348Ker
(177)I(2007)DMC550Kar
(178)2002Cr.LJ.2282Cal
(179)II(1998)DMC322SC
(180)I(2007)DMC226Bom
(181)AIR2007SC2215
(182)AIR2010SC305
(183)2010(2)KLT71
(184)II(2007)DMC73Del
![Page 171: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/171.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 171 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(185)II(2007)DMC677Ker
(186)AIR1980Mad82
(187)II(2002)DMC646AP
(188)I(2002)DMC288Ker
(189)II(2002)DMC798
(190)AIR2002J&K90
(191)I(2006)DMC520Del
(192)I(2006)DMC55Jha
(193)II(2000)DMC283MP
(194)II(2005)DMC56Ker:AIR2005Ker91
(195)II(2008)DMC111P&H
(196)II(1999)DMC127Ori
(197)II(2008)DMC113Bom
(198)II(2007)DMC550Gau
(199)I(2006)DMC444Jha
(200)II(1998)DMC322SC
(201)II(2000)DMC624Kar
(202)I(2007)DMC26Del
(203)I(2007)DMC22All
(204)AIR2000SC1398
(205)I(2004)DMC632Del
(206)2005MLR311AP
(207)1993Cri.LJ238
(208)(1996)1SCC554
(209)I(2003)DMC467All
![Page 172: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/172.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 172 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(210)II(2005)DMC266Ker
(211)II(2006)DMC471Cal
(212)I(2007)DMC714MP
(213)I(2008)DMC371Del
(214)1987Cri.LJ980
(215)1999Cri.LJ322Raj
(216)II(1995)DMC233
(217)(1981)4SCC250
(218)I(2003)DMC725Kar
(219)Section2(ii)ofDissolutionofMuslimMarriagesAct,1939.SeealsoRajMohammedv.SaeedaAminaBegam,AIR.1976Kar201.
(220)II(2002)DMC546Pat
(221)AIR2002Del131
(222)I(2001)DMC469Del
(223)AIR2000Guj277
(224)I(2002)DMC652Del
(225)II(2003)DMC188Kar
(226)II(2008)DMC827Del
(227)(1999)6SCC326
(228)II(2007)DMC550Gau
(229)I(2008)DMC22SC
(230)I(2002)DMC20MP
(231)II(2006)DMC35All
(232)I(2006)DMC786MP
(233)II(2006)DMC613Ker
(234)I(2008)DMC481Del
![Page 173: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/173.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 173 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(235)I(2008)DMC646Del
(236)II(2003)DMC656Del
(237)AIR2004Del323
(238)II(2002)DMC301Raj
(239)II(2003)DMC557Raj
(240)AIR1990J&K7
(241)AsianAge,(Bombay)10January2006p.10.
(242)AIR1999Raj304
(243)II(2001)DMC580Bom
(244)(2002)2Cal.LT336
(245)II(2007)DMC631Gau
(246)II(2008)DMC217AP
(247)Thesectionempowersthecourttovary,modifyorrescinditsownorderifthereisachangeinthesituation.
(248)II(2003)DMC193Bom
(249)I(2004)DMC572Bom
(250)II(2005)DMC134Bom
(251)Section127(3)(c)ofCr.PCstipulatesthatifawomanhasobtainedadivorcefromherhusbandandhasvoluntarilysurrenderedherrightstomaintenanceafterherdivorce,theMagistratemaycanceltheorderofmaintenance.
(252)I(2001)DMC407Bom
(253)II(2005)DMC101P&H
(254)AIR1987SC1100
(255)1979MahLJ729
(256)II(2003)DMC131AP
(257)II(2006)DMC523Gau
![Page 174: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/174.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 174 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(258)II(2002)DMC549Cal:2002Cr.LJ1751
(259)II(1997)DMC164SC:1996(4)SCC479
(260)ThroughMarriageLaw(Amendment)Act,2003(ActNo.50of2003)whichinsertedSection19(iii-a)inHMAandinSection31(iii-a)inSMAw.e.f.23December2003.
(261)I(2006)DMC32AP
(262)SeetherulingsinVinayPandeyv.RoshanKumar,II(2000)DMC571SC;II(2000)DMC511SC.
(263)II(2001)DMC171SC
(264)II(2001)DMC(SC)186
(265)II(2006)DMC594SC
(266)I(2008)DMC354SC
(267)II(2006)DMC436Bom
(268)I(2006)DMC118AP
(269)II(2006)DMC589MP
(270)I(2008)DMC708Ori
(271)I(2006)DMC189Ker
(272)(1992)2SCC562
(273)(2004)13SCC411
(274)(2004)13SCC405
(275)(2005)12SCC301
(276)II(2006)DMC565MP
(277)II(2001)DMC593MP
(278)II(2008)DMC639MP
(279)II(2002)DMC24MP
(280)II(2005)DMC266Ker
(281)AIR1996Bom94
![Page 175: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/175.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 175 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(282)AIR1986SC984
(283)I(2002)DMC749AP
(284)AIR1986Guj6
(285)AIR1988Raj84
(286)AIR1999Bom237
(287)AIR1994Del234
(288)2005Cri.LR572
(289)I(2007)DMC514Ker
(290)I(2006)DMC465Cal
(291)II(2008)DMC830SC
(292)I(2007)DMC398Cal
(293)II(2008)DMC352MP
(294)II(2007)DMC731Bom
(295)II(2006)DMC453Del
(296)I(2004)DMC581Mad
(297)II(2002)DMC557Guj
(298)AIR1989Del10
(299)TheremovalofceilingofRs500formaintenanceunderSection125ofCr.PChascontributedagreatdealinachievingthisobjective.
(300)Inactualfact,thesumsawardedaremuchlower,thoughinrecenttimesonecandiscernanupwardtrendintheamountsawardedasmaintenance.Thisislinkedtotheupwardsurgeinsalariesdrawnbythemiddleanduppermiddleclassesinthecorporateworld(AIR1979Bom.173).
(301)II(2005)DMC417Guj
(302)See‘Husband’sObligationtoMaintaintheWife’discussedearlier.
(303)1998Cri.LJ2762
(304)II(2007)DMC215Ker
![Page 176: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/176.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 176 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(305)I(2000)DMC95Bom
(306)I(2008)DMC271Utt
(307)I(2004)DMC675Del
(308)AIR2002Del131
(309)AIR1994Del234
(310)AIR1987Raj159
(311)AIR1997SC3397:II(1997)DMC338SC
(312)AIR2000P&H221
(313)II(2002)DMC114Del
(314)II(2002)DMC742Mad
(315)II(2003)DMC656Del
(316)I(2002)DMC56Del
(317)AIR2004Del323
(318)I(2006)DMC23Del
(319)I(2004)DMC618Del
(320)Theorderwaspassedinthedayswheremobilephoneswereconsideredasastatussymbol.
(321)I(2007)DMC64Del
(322)VinodDuleraiMehtav.KanakVinodMehta.AIR1990Bom120.SeealsoMukeshMittalv.SeemaMittalwherehusband’sincome-taxreturnswerenotproducedandadverseinferencewasdrawn.
(323)I(2007)DMC815Del
(324)I(2008)DMC166Del
(325)II(2004)DMC297Del
(326)TheTimesofIndia,Bombay,20February2009,P.11.
(327)I(2001)DMC313All
![Page 177: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/177.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 177 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(328)II(2001)DMC507Pat
(329)1II(2003)DMC142Cal
(330)II(1999)DMC536Raj
(331)I(1998)DMC699Mad
(332)II(2001)DMC381Bom
(333)I(2004)DMC445Raj
(334)I(2007)DMC751Ori
(335)II(2008)DMC363SC
(336)I(2008)DMC371Del
(337)II(2005)DMC345Raj
(338)I(2006)DMC709Raj
(339)II(2008)DMC276Raj
(340)AIR1994Ori15
(341)AIR1996P&H
(342)DMCI(2000)524Del
(343)II(2006)DMC179Del
(344)I(2007)DMC590Kar
(345)I(2003)DMC580Bom
(346)Harilalv.Lilavati,AIR1961Guj202;Minaraniv.Dasarath,AIR1963Cal428;VinodChandraSharmav.RajeshPathak,AIR1988All150.
(347)AIR1964Bom83
(348)AIR1991Bom440
(349)II(1993)DMC110SC
(350)II(2000)DMC727Bom
(351)II(2007)DMC677Ker
(352)II(2002)DMC712Bom
![Page 178: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/178.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 178 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(353)II(2006)DMC637Gau
(354)I(2004)DMC344Jha
(355)I(2006)DMC181Cal
(356)II(1998)DMC533Mad
(357)AIR1983SC916
(358)II(1999)DMC681Kar
(359)II(2001)DMC260MP
(360)II(2007)DMC119Bom
(361)I(2000)DMC313SC
(362)I(2000)DMC156P&H
(363)I(2004)DMC693AP
(364)I(2006)DMC106Mad
(365)I(2007)DMC136Ker
(366)II(2005)DMC1SC
(367)I(2006)DMC461All
(368)II(2007)DMC779P&H
(369)I(2003)DMC483HP
(370)II(2005)DMC315Guj
(371)II(2008)DMC575Ker
(372)II(2005)DMC1SC
(373)I(2006)DMC461All
(374)Padmov.SuratRam,I(2003)DMC483HP.
(375)II(2006)DMC270Pat
(376)AIR1993All133
(377)AIR1993All133
![Page 179: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/179.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 179 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(378)AIR1965Ori154
(379)II(2008)DMC19Ker
(380)Seethediscussiononpostdivorceadulteryinsectiontitled‘MatrimonialMisconductandRightofMaintenance’earlier.
(381)AIR2005Bom352
(382)II(2006)DMC120Jha
(383)II(2006)DMC629Cal
(384)II(2006)DMC310Del
(385)II(2006)DMC642All
(386)II(2006)DMC823Del
(387)I(2007)DMC82AP
(388)I(2007)DMC791Pat
(389)II(2007)DMC541Cal
(390)II(2007)DMC399All
(391)Seesectiontitled‘MaterialBasisfortheNotionofSacramentalIndissolubility’ofChapter1MarriageandItsDissolution.
(392)Seesectiontitled‘TheJourneyfromSacramenttoCompract’ofChapter1MarriageandItsDissolution.
(393)LawReform(MarriedWomenandTortfeasors)Act,1935(c.30).
(394)(1947)63TLR645(ascitedinHeward2003:49)
(395)(1962)3AllER345
(396)(1969)2AllER385:(1970)AC777
(397)(1971)AC886:(1970)2AllER780
(398)(1965)2AllER472HL
(399)ThepositionwasfurtheralteredthroughtheenactmentoftheFamilyLawActof1996,whichlayemphasisonconciliationandmediationratherthancontestedlitigation.
(400)Rathersurprisingly,theHindulawdidtakeintoaccountananti-womenpremise,
![Page 180: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/180.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 180 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
whichwasgettingintroducedinsomeWesterncountries,ofequalityandgenderneutralitywithinmatrimonialstatutes,andawardedequalrightsofmaintenancetoboththespouses,thoughtheactualgroundlevelrealityofhusbandsandwivesvarieddrasticallyintheIndiancontext.
(401)‘TheActdidnotevenprovideforclaimingtheHinduwoman’scustomaryrightofstridhanatthetimeofdivorce.Theconceptofawoman’sclaimtostridhanwasevolvedincontemporarytimesthroughaSupremeCourtrulingunderthecriminallaw,underSection406ofIPC,CriminalBreachofTrustinPratibhaRaniv.SurajKumarAIR1985SC658.
(402)(1962)LXVBLR750
(403)(1977)Mh.LJ66
(404)AIR1982Bom.341
(405)AIR1985AP207
(406)I(2003)DMC602Bom
(407)II(2003)DMC809Cal
(408)I(2006)DMC386Bom
(409)I(2005)DMC345SC:(2005)3SCC313
(410)Section27—DisposalofProperty:InanyproceedingsunderthisAct,theCourtmaymakesuchprovisionsinthedecreeasitdeemsjustandproperwithrespecttoanypropertypresentedatoraboutthetimeofmarriage,whichmaybelongjointlytoboththehusbandandthewife..
(411)Section26oftheAct.
(412)Thisissueisdiscussedatlengthinsub-section,‘RightsofWomeninInformalRelationships’,inSectionAearlier.
(413)(2007)6MLJ205Mad
(414)I(2007)DMC1SC:20073SCC169
(415)SCSuitNo3072of2007(decidedon5December2007)Bom.
(416)I(2008)DMC507Del
(417)152(2008)DLT691
(418)2008(3)ALD486
![Page 181: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/181.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 181 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(419)157(2009)DLT472
(420)CrlRCNo.48&148of2008inMPNo.1of2008(decidedon25March2008)Mad.
(421)CRANo.501/07and595/07(decidedonon25March2008)MP.
(422)2008(5)Bom.CR149:(2008)110BomLR1797
(423)(1973)1AllER829
(424)(1982)1AllER41
(425)(1987)1FLR7
(426)(1985)1AllER328
(427)(1990)1FLR140
(428)(2001)1AC596
(429)IhaverelieduponanarticlebyPhilippaHewitt,‘DividingforEquality:TheMaturingofMatrimonialLawinHongKong’inHongKongLawyer,HongKong:July,2008pp.26–32.http://www.hwg-law.com/en/news̲articles/HWG-Article-Jul08.pdfwhilediscussingthesecasesandalsofortracingthedevelopmentofcaselawinEnglandandWales.
(430)ThefactorsaresetoutinSection75(2),FLA
(431)Thissectionisbasedontheinformationgatheredfromthefollowingwebsite:Howto:Thedivisionofpropertywhenamarriage,civilunionordefactorelationshipendshttp://www.howtolaw.co.nz/html/ml013.asp(NewZealand)
(432)1989SLR342
(433)(2003)3MLJ273
(434)(1997)1MLJ125
(435)(2004)4MLJ395
(436)ThissectionisbasedoninformationprovidedinKnowYourRightsbyWomenLivingUnderMuslimLaws(2003:316–19)andarecentnewsreportregardingthesituationinTanzania.
(437)Dar-es-SalaamDailyNews,1August2009
(438)Ibid
(439)IamrelyinguponanincisiveessaybyMarthaFineman(1991a265–77).Whiletheessayisdated,theargumentsarestillrelevantforourunderstandingoftheseconcepts.
![Page 182: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/182.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 182 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(440)(1984)3SCC698
(441)AIR1992Pat76
(442)PreambleoftheAct
(443)AIR1955Nag193
(444)Section4(1)oftheAct
(445)(1917)ILR40Mad672
(446)AIR1914PC41
(447)AIR1924All622
(448)AIR1940All329
(449)AIR1961P&H51
(450)AIR1971Mys211;AIR1971MP235
(451)(1984)3SCC698
(452)AIR1987SC3
(453)AIR1993Bom.232
(454)AIR1993Gau.38
(455)(1997)10SCC342
(456)(1804)KB5East221
(457)(1897)1Ch786
(458)(1926)AllER111
(459)(1948)2AllER413
(460)ProvisotoSection6(a)ofHGMA
(461)ThePunjabChiefCourtwassetupunderthePunjabChiefCourtsActof1866andwasconvertedintotheLahoreHighCourtlaterin1919.
(462)(1917)40IC107
(463)AIR1926Lah117
(464)AIR1955Mad451
![Page 183: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/183.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 183 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(465)AIR1986MP221
(466)PLD(WP)Lah509
(467)I(2002)DMC234Chh
(468)(1862)2SW&Tr640(ascitedbyDiwan&Diwan1993:476).
(469)14MIA309
(470)ILR188012Mad67
(471)ILR28All329
(472)AIR1934All722
(473)AIR1987Del81
(474)2003(2)HLRKar
(475)I(1998)DMC710All
(476)AIR1999SC1149
(477)AIR1992SC1447
(478)2003(2)HLRBom
(479)I(1999)DMC585MP
(480)II(2001)DMC48Bom
(481)AIR1993Bom.232
(482)I(2009)DMC523SC
(483)Thisissueisdiscussedinsectiontitled‘MarriageswithExpatriateIndians’ofChapter1MarriageanditsDissolution.
(484)I(2000)DMC413SC
(485)2001Cri.LJ91
(486)‘Unnaturaloffence’isatermwhichisusedinSection377ofIPCtodescribeactsofasexualnaturewhichareoutsideofthescopeofpeno-vaginalintercourse.ThissectionwasinthenewsinthecontextofsamesexrelationshipswhentheDelhiHighCourtreaddownthesectiontoexcludeconsentualsamesexrelationshipsinNazFoundationv.GovernmentofNCT,2010Cri.LJ94Del.
![Page 184: University Press Scholarship Online Oxford Scholarship Online …hindulaw.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/7/8/7778263/matrimonial... · 2018-10-03 · Amma Valalamma,5 the Kerala High Court](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022040901/5e7131c75ad4bf3b4f619e8c/html5/thumbnails/184.jpg)
Matrimonial Rights and Obligations
Page 184 of 184
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015
(487)I(2004)DMC414Bom
(488)Cityseesriseincasesofparentskidnappingkids,Bombay:TheTimesofIndia,27April2009.
(489)II(2008)DMC774SC
(490)AIR1981SC1829
(491)AIR2004Bom.478
(492)I(2005)DMC345SC:(2005)3SCC313
(493)AIR2005SC3557
(494)(1991)2SCC375
(495)I(2007)DMC396Bom
(496)AIR1976Bom.433
(497)AIR2005SC1809:I(2005)DMC503SC
(498)Themagistrate’scourtsarethelowestintherungofjudicialhierarchies.BetweenthiscourtandtheSupremeCourtaretwootherrungs—thesessionscourtandthehighcourt.
(499)CaptainRameshChandraKaushalv.VeenaKaushal,AIR1978SC1807.
Accessbroughttoyouby: UniversityGrantsCommission