MUMBAI: A "second wife"-a woman now not legally permitted to marry an already-married man-cannot avail of reduction beneath the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, a sessions courtroom has observed in a vital order. The courtroom denied a 45-year-old "widow's" plea for per 30 days repairs of Rs 50,000 from her in-laws. She had claimed that she had married the person in 1997 and lived together with his wife and in-laws at their Ghatkopar bungalow till his dying in 2003.
The sessions courtroom held that considering the law, for proving a courting in the nature of marriage, the events will have to cling themselves as spouses earlier than the sector and they will have to have the ability to entering into marriage being unmarried.
"The present relationship does not fulfil the most essential conditions. It cannot be called a relationship in the nature of marriage. The applicant doesn't deserve any protection under DV Act," the courtroom said.
The woman had moved her plea on August 10 last 12 months after a Justice of the Peace's courtroom rejected her application for reduction. She informed the consultation's courtroom she had married the person in February 1997. She said that when residing in the Ghatkopar bungalow for a couple of years, she moved right into a flat, together with her husband, his mother, first wife and an adopted daughter. The woman said her husband and his first wife didn't have kids and he or she (complainant) had adopted her elder brother's daughter in 1990. The woman said her husband died in December 2003.
She claimed that when his dying, the flat was once transferred to his mother, first wife and herself. She alleged that in March 2007, they forcibly took her signature on the reward deed of the valuables. She said her marriage was once now not registered and claimed reduction beneath the DV Act as she was once jobless and had no assets of source of revenue. She said her inlaws didn't reinforce her.
The sessions courtroom said that in the appeal, the only prison factor to be thought to be was once if a 2d wife may just claim reduction beneath the Act. "The condition that parties must be qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried, is most important. For proving relationship in the nature of marriage, the parties must be otherwise capable to marry. In the present case, at the time of 'marriage' of the applicant with the man, his first wife was living. The applicant could not have legally married him as he was not unmarried," the courtroom said.
It dominated that the marriage didn't apply the stipulations of capability to marry as laid down through the Supreme Court and hence can't be termed courting in the nature of marriage.
The sessions courtroom held that considering the law, for proving a courting in the nature of marriage, the events will have to cling themselves as spouses earlier than the sector and they will have to have the ability to entering into marriage being unmarried.
"The present relationship does not fulfil the most essential conditions. It cannot be called a relationship in the nature of marriage. The applicant doesn't deserve any protection under DV Act," the courtroom said.
The woman had moved her plea on August 10 last 12 months after a Justice of the Peace's courtroom rejected her application for reduction. She informed the consultation's courtroom she had married the person in February 1997. She said that when residing in the Ghatkopar bungalow for a couple of years, she moved right into a flat, together with her husband, his mother, first wife and an adopted daughter. The woman said her husband and his first wife didn't have kids and he or she (complainant) had adopted her elder brother's daughter in 1990. The woman said her husband died in December 2003.
She claimed that when his dying, the flat was once transferred to his mother, first wife and herself. She alleged that in March 2007, they forcibly took her signature on the reward deed of the valuables. She said her marriage was once now not registered and claimed reduction beneath the DV Act as she was once jobless and had no assets of source of revenue. She said her inlaws didn't reinforce her.
The sessions courtroom said that in the appeal, the only prison factor to be thought to be was once if a 2d wife may just claim reduction beneath the Act. "The condition that parties must be qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried, is most important. For proving relationship in the nature of marriage, the parties must be otherwise capable to marry. In the present case, at the time of 'marriage' of the applicant with the man, his first wife was living. The applicant could not have legally married him as he was not unmarried," the courtroom said.
It dominated that the marriage didn't apply the stipulations of capability to marry as laid down through the Supreme Court and hence can't be termed courting in the nature of marriage.
Mumbai court denies relief to '2nd wife'
![Mumbai court denies relief to '2nd wife']()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
May 07, 2018
Rating:
