View
12
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
InP.Archana@Atchamambav.VaradaSivaRamaKrishna,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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,inShailKumariDeviv.KrishanBhagwanPathak@KishunB.Pathak,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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
IntheShantha@Ushadeviv.B.G.Shivananjappa372case,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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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-
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
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
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
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
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:
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.’
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
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.
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.
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-
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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.
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
Recommended