Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Madras High Court Judgment is being misinterpreted
The recent judgment by the Honourable Madras High Court ordering maintenance to a woman has been misinterpreted by quoting some parts of the judgment, without considering the context in which it was delivered. Succinctly put, the appellant is a lady who was married to the respondent and had two children from him. She was not granted maintenance by the lower court due to lack of documentary evidence and other evidences like customary rituals. Justice Karnan, who presided the Court, ordered that the appellant be granted maintenance stating the fact that the couple has been living together and had two children out of the relationship. The Court held that this was to be considered as proof of marriage. This judgment should be welcomed as it addresses the plight of many women who fight for justice in the family courts, who are denied maintenance and their very survival is put at stake. The court further clarified that proof of marriage is not decided by the existence of customary rituals which are just to show the society as to the conduct of marriage. These rituals just satisfy the society that the couple has been married.
It is high time that our thoughts change. Rituals and customs should not be given more importance to rationality. Religion should pursue humanity not injustice. What else can a woman deserve who did not register her marriage, did not follow rituals and trusted a man with her life, lived with him and begot two children? She did not have any other option but to be separated from him. How will she maintain herself and her children? Those children were declared as legitimate and the woman a legitimate wife. The Court has delivered justice to the woman who is in distress since the year 2000.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good work Amritha!!
ReplyDeleteBut there is a problem in the judgement in the larger context,page 11 of judgement reads as follows
ReplyDelete"
the court is of the view that if a women aged 18 or above has a sexual relationship with a man , above 21, and during the course of such relationship, if the women becomes pregnant, she would henceforth be treated as the "wife" and the man "husband"
The respondent signed the form for caesarean operation of the woman, hence he is estopped from denying that he is her husband. The live birth report has been signed by the petitioner and respondent both. They are not debarred from marrying through religious decree. It has been clarified that the legal aspects outweigh customary aspects. It is further held that the parties have not affected rights of third party. The lady was not married to another man before being in relationship with the respondent and the respondent was also a bachelor. Hence, the petitioner was considered as the legitimate wife of the respondent. The lines quoted and stated as controversial are “if a woman aged 18 or above has a sexual relationship with a man, aged 21 or above, and during the course of such relationship, if the woman becomes pregnant, she would henceforth be treated as the wife and the man would be treated as the husband.” The context in which this statement is made is the argument by the petitioner of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act dealing with the legitimacy of children. This should be read along with the previous paragraphs of the order, also keeping in mind the context in which it was delivered. The Court also clarified that even if the girl does not become pregnant, the documentary evidence to show the existence of such a relationship will take the man and woman as married. Hence, separation would require decree of divorce. It was also held that the marriage conducted after following all the rituals, which is not consummated, is void according to law; in the instant case the marriage is consummated even though the norms and formalities are not adhered to.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot separate certain parts of the order and fix it in contexts very distinct from the present one. The Court's viewpoint is quite clear. I think it is being messed up.
ReplyDelete