A Bench of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench.
The questions are:
1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?
2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
The Bench said “We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term ‘wife’ to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual”.
JUDGEMENT : LIVE IN RIGHTS
- Few isolated incidents in marriage not cruelty: Apex court (topinews.com)
- Apex court for law to give maintenance to ‘second wife’ (topinews.com)
- Rights of women in live-in relations under court lens (topinews.com)
- What’s the provenance of “one man and one woman” to describe marriage? (ask.metafilter.com)