Petitioners / Appellants ( Sushant / Tarun)

1. Whether the contentment of petitioner sushant to quash the FIR filed u/s Cr PC 482
by the respondent is valid or not? – Valid

The contentment of petitioner Sushant to quash the FIR Filed u/s 482 of CrPC by the respondent
is valid. Since, there is no concept of Marital rape under Indian Law.

The fact clearly states that Mr. Sushant and Mrs. Abha was married on 12th Jan 2017 and they
are legally wedded couple since then, they had a sexual intercourse on the few occasions.

Sec. 375 of IPC, Exception (2) clearly states that “Sexual intercourse by a man with his own
wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape”.
In this case, the respondent was legally wedded to the petitioner, who is above the age of 18
years and it is not considered as a Rape.

As per the 172nd Law commission report, it is recommended that

“an exception be added to Section 375 of the IPC to the effect that sexual intercourse by a
man with his own wife, the wife not being under 16 years of age, is not sexual assault.”

An NGO named “SAKSHI” filed a petition for deleting the Exception (2) provided under
Sec.375 of IPC. The Law commission of India did not agree with the NGO and the reason given
is that if the exception that is recommended is deleted, it “may amount to excessive
interference with the marital relationship”.

2. Whether the decision of the dist court of Tis Hazari towards maintenance petition
filed by Abha is maintainable or not ? – Maintainable

The Decision of the District Court of Tis hazari towards maintenance petition filed by Abha is
maintainable. Since, there is no legal relationship between the petitioner and respondent.

The facts clearly states that there is no legal marriage between them and
There is no legal definition of live in relationship and therefore the legal status of such type of
relationships is also unsubstantiated.

The Indian law does not provide any rights or obligations on the parties in live relationship. The
status of the children born during such relationship is also unclear and therefore, the court has
provided clarification to the concept of live in relationships through various judgments.

D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal, 2010

The judgment determined certain pre-requisites for a live in relationship to be considered valid.
It provides that The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses and
must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being
unmarried. It was stated that the couple must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out
to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. The court held that not all
relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage and get the benefit of the
Domestic Violence Act.

Further, in this case, the appellant of the case had a motive of money alone and not to be legally
wedded with respondent. Since, the appellant didn’t have any motive of marriage, even she
knows very well that she was pregnant at the time of non-acceptance by the respondent. This
shows her motive clearly.

Also, The maintenance will be given, only if there was a valid marriage under Indian Law. In
this case, there is no legal wedlock between the parties.

The news of Jeff Bezos and Mackenzie Bezos’s divorce grabbed a lot of headlines recently as the
couple worked out a billion dollar settlement.

Alimony does not constitute child support," said Deshmukh. Maintenance of children has to be
provided separately. “The husband is not required to pay in case the wife remarries, though he
still is supposed to pay a maintenance amount to support children," said Bangera.

Maintenance only to legally wedded wife

Only a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance. A Hindu woman marrying a Hindu male
having a living wife, is not entitled to maintenance as this marriage is void, Yamunabai Anantrao
Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530.

3. Whether the decision of dist court dwarka towards maintenance and separate
residence filed by Abha is maintainable or not ? not maintainable

The decision of district court of Dwarka towards maintenance and separate residence filed by
abha is not maintenable, although, there was a legal marriage, the consent was obtained through
misrepresentation that she was pregnant and hence it is voidable as per Sec.12 of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. Since, the marriage is voidable, there is no question of maintenance in this case.

Before marriage itself, she had filed a petition of maintenance from Tarun and the respondent is
unaware of this fact during the time of marriage.

Since, she was knowing the background of the respondent that He is a member of parliament and
as we discussed earlier in the second issue, the respondent as purely in the motive of money. It
should be noted that the relationship between the parties was just 16 days from the date of
marriage.

In the meantime, the respondent had an illegal relationship with Tarun and the fact clearly states
that the appellant saw both of them, while coming out of the hotel room after the marriage.
Under criminal law, the first wife aggrieved by a second marriage can file a complaint for
bigamy. Under section 494, IPC, "whoever, having a husband or wife living, contracts a
marriage during the life of the former husband or wife, is void…" and therefore the same is also
an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years or fine or both. This section does not
extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by the
court of competent jurisdiction. Under section 495, IPC, bigamy committed by concealing the
fact of the first marriage is punishable with 10 years imprisonment or fine or both. A complaint
can also be filed for cheating under section 415, IPC. Cheating is defined under section 415, IPC,
as fraudulently or dishonesty inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything,
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Such an act or omission should be
proved to cause or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property. Therefore, if the fact of the subsistence of the first marriage is kept a secret, apart from
a complaint under bigamy provision, a complaint can also be filed for those offences of cheating.
Often it is difficult to prove the fact of the second marriage. A man faced with the criminal
complaint for bigamy would often argued that his relationship with the second woman was not
one of marriage as the necessary as the necessary formalities of a valid marriage as required by
law were not performed.

Hindu Personal Law

Bigamy is defined as an offence not only under the criminal law but also under HMA, Section
17, HMA says that any marriage between Hindus is void if on the date of such marriage, either
party had a husband or wife living. The same is punishable under Section 494 and 495, IPC.

Another option available to the second wife is to get the marriage annulled under Section 11 read
with Section 5(1) of HMA. Section 5, HMA provides for the conditions for the valid marriage,
on being that neither party should have spouse living at the time of the marriage. Accordingly, a
marriage contracted while either party has a spouse living, can be annulled under Section 11 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Respondent / Appellant (Abha)

 1. Whether the contentment of petitioner sushant to quash the FIR filed u/s 482 by the
respondent is valid or not? – Invalid

The contentment of petitioner Sushant to quash the FIR Filed u/s 482 of CrPC by the
respondent is not maintainable since, it violates fundamental rights of the Constitution of
India under articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a) and 21.

Sec. 375 of IPC, Exception (2) states that a husband can have sexual intercourse with his
wife even without her consent if she is above 15 years of age. But for unmarried women
the age is 18. This provision clearly violates Article 14 : Right to equality and other
statutory provisions like

1. Section 60(1) Indians Christians Marriage act 1872

2. Section 3(1)(c) of Pharsi Marriage and divorce act 1936
3. Section 4(c) of special marriag act 1954
4. Section 5(iii) of Hindu Mariage Act 1955
5. Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006
6. As per the 172nd Law commission report, it is recommended that
“an exception be added to Section 375 of the IPC to the effect that sexual intercourse by a
man with his own wife, the wife not being under 16 years of age, is not sexual assault.”
which are also violative of aforesaid Articles under Indian Constitution.

“Marital Rapes” are punishable in 52 countries around the world, which was clearly
given in “Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against
Women”, one among themselves, our country has also signed the convention which was
binding on us.

2. Whether the decision of the dist court of Tis Hazari towards maintenance petition in
favor of Tarun is maintainable or not ? Not- maintainable

As stated by the Learned Counsel that there is no specific definition of live in relationship, “Live
in relationship may be immoral in the eyes of the conservative Indian society but it is not
“illegal” in the eyes of law. Indian judiciary is neither expressly encouraging nor prohibiting
such kind of live-in-relationships in India. The judiciary is only rendering justice in accordance
with law in a particular case. The main concern of the judiciary is to prevent the miscarriage of
justice. The judiciary in deciding the cases keeps in mind the social mores and constitutional
values.”

The first case in which the Supreme Court of India first recognized the live in relationship as a
valid marriage was that of Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation , in which the Court
gave legal validity to the a 50 year live in relationship of a couple.

The Allahabad High Curt again recognized the concept of live in relationship in the case of
PayalKatara vs. Superintendent, NariNiketanand others, wherein it held that live in
relationship is not illegal. The Court said that a man and a woman can live together as per their
wish even without getting married. It further said that it may be immoral for the society but is not
illegal.

The right to maintenance in live in relationship is decided by the court in accordance with the
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines:
Domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point
of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage,
or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living
together as a joint family.

Though live-in relationship is not categorically defined in the Act but left to the courts for
interpretation. By virtue of aforementioned provision, the court interpreted the expression
“relationship in the nature of marriage”. The provisions of DV Act are presently made applicable
to the individuals who are in live-in relationships. Courts presume live-in relationships to be
covered under the ambit of the expression as the words nature of marriage and live-in
relationship stand on the same line and meaning. This gives women some basic rights to protect
themselves from the abuse of fraudulent marriage, bigamous relationships.

The right of maintenance is available to wives under all personal laws in India. However, none of
the religions recognises and accept live-in relationships. Since no remedy is granted to women
involved in a live-in relationship, Indian Courts have widened the scope of maintenance under
the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, Section- 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been
provided to give a legal right of maintenance to lady partners in or out of a marriage.

Maintenance to woman in a live-in relationship

The Supreme Court expressed its opinion that a broad interpretation of “wife” should include
cases where man and woman live together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of
time (live-in relationship/ presumed marriage/ de facto marriage/ cohabitation). A strict proof of
marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under S. 125 CrPC so as to fulfill the true
spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance, Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar
Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141. (This judgment has however been referred to a larger
bench)

Recently, it is held that a woman in a live-in relationship has an efficacious remedy to seek
maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 even if it is
assumed that she is not entitled to the same under Section 125 CrPC. In fact, under the Domestic
Violence Act, the victim would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under
Section 125 CrPC, Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2301.

Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V.Sarma, 2013

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court has illustrated five categories where the concept of
live in relationships can be considered and proved in the court of law. Following are the
categories:
 1. Domestic relationship between an adult male and an adult female, both
unmarried. It is the most uncomplicated sort of relationship
2. Domestic relationship between a married man and an adult unmarried woman,
entered knowingly.
3. Domestic relationship between an adult unmarried man and a married woman,
entered knowingly. Such relationship can lead to a conviction under Indian Penal Code
for the crime of adultery
4. Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married male,
entered unknowingly
5. Domestic relationship between same sex partners ( gay or lesbian)

3. Whether the decision of dist court dwarka towards maintenance and separate
residence against Sushant is maintainable or not? Maintainable

The decision of district court of dwarka towards maintenance and separate residence against
sushant is maintenable, as per
1) Sec. 25 of Hindu marriage Act, 1955,
2) Sec.18(1) of the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act, 1956
3) Sec. 20 of the PW Domestic Violence Act, 2005
4) Sec. 125 of Cr.PC provides the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

Further, it was very clear that both the parties are legally wedded couples according to the Indian
law, while in case of Judicial separation or after obtaining the decree of divorce, the husband
should pay the maintenance to his wife and children, according to the above said provisions.

Any violence against the women is subject to punishment according to the Indian laws.

In the case of GAURAV MANCHANDA V. NAMRATA SINGH (2019), the interim relief
and Rs.50000/- was paid as compensation, due to domestic violence. Because of the domestic
violence, she left the house.