Friday, May 4, 2012

Apex court also upheld live-in-relationship can claim maintenance” (a) the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses. (b) They must be of legal age to marry. (c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. (d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. (see ‘Common Law Marriage’ in Wikipedia on Google.) In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’. 32. In our opinion not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage’ 33. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ and not ‘live-in relationship’. The Court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute.”5. I have gone through the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner married her at PeddagattuLingamanthula Swamy Temple, Durajupalli Village of Chivemula Mandal, Nalgonda District, on 10.09.2010, and out of her association with him, she gained pregnancy . Since the petitioner has filed counter in the DVC, I am not inclined to adjudicate the issue on merits in this quash petition. I deem it appropriate to direct the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, to expedite the proceedings in DVC 4 of 2011 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.2353 of 2012

Date:02^nd March, 2012

Between:

Verpula Ganga Raju S/o.Lingaiah

..... Petitioner

AND

Verpula Renuka W/o.Ganga Raju & Anr.

.....Respondents

***

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.2353 of 2012

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the 1^st respondent in DVC No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, to quash the proceedings therein.

2. The 1^st respondent herein filed DVC No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner herein developed intimacy with her when she was at the age of 15 years and continued the said intimacy and out of the said intimacy, she gained pregnancy. It is further stated in the complaint that the petitioner married her as his wife by tying Thalibottu at Peddagattu Lingamanthula Swamy Temple, Durajupalli Village of Chivemula Mandal, Nalgonda District, on 10.09.2010. When she gained pregnancy, the petitioner denied his relationship with her. A panchayat has been held before the elders viz., Eeraboina Buchaiah, Eeraboina Guruvaiah, Eeraboina Yellaiah and others. The caste elders advised the petitioner and his parents to accept her as wife of the petitioner. The petitioner agreed to receive her as his wife provided she secures Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry. She filed a report before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.2 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 417, 420 and 493 IPC came to be registered. The petitioner herein entered appearance in DVC No.4 of 2011 and filed counter. After filing counter in the DVC, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings therein.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no relationship with the 1^st respondent and therefore, continuation of proceedings in DVC No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, amounts to abuse of process of the Court. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in D.Velusamy v. D.Patchalammal[1]. Much emphasis has been laid on paras.31 to 33 of the cited judgment, which read as hereunder:

“31. In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married :

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to marry.

(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. (see 'Common Law Marriage' in Wikipedia on Google.)

In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a 'domestic relationship'.

32. In our opinion not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage'

33. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live-in relationship'. The Court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute.”

5. I have gone through the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent herein. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner married her at PeddagattuLingamanthula Swamy Temple, Durajupalli Village of Chivemula Mandal, Nalgonda District, on 10.09.2010, and out of her association with him, she gained pregnancy . Since the petitioner has filed counter in the DVC, I am not inclined to adjudicate the issue on merits in this quash petition. I deem it appropriate to direct the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, to expedite the proceedings in DVC 4 of 2011 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:02^nd March, 2012.

cs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY