Should the other woman in a man’s life get maintenance? SC to decide

Citing the decision of a California court with regard to palimony,Justice Katju,who was on the bench with Justice T S Thakur,observed,“It may be true that under Section 125 Cr PC,she may not be entitled to maintenance but you spent time with her for 14 years. There was a ruling by a California court in the case titled Marwin Vs Marwin where the court ordered that palimony should be paid even if the woman is not legally married.”

The judge went on to explain that the term “palimony” originated from the word “pals” under which such a relationship was a sort of contract even if it was an oral agreement.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by D Velusamy who had moved the court against an order of a Tamil Nadu court asking him to pay a maintenance of Rs 500 to D Patchaiammal who claimed she was married to him in 1986.

Velusamy’s counsel Harish Kumar T informed that court that his client was already married and was living with his wife and children. So there was no question of paying her maintenance. “Her claim of marriage is not sustainable under law as he was married much before in 1980,so the second marriage is invalid under Hindu Marriage Act.”

The counsel argued that there was no provision for providing maintenance to a woman who is not legally married.

Not willing to accept the argument,Justice Katju said: “You spent 14 years with her. She lost her youth but you do not want to pay anything to her. She might not have been legally married to you but you have an obligation.”

Posting the matter for further hearing on October 6,the court then appointed senior advocate Jayant Bhushan to assist the court on the issue.

Velusamy’s lawyer submitted that the matrimonial court and the High Court had taken an erroneous view that Patchaiammal was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr PC. Under the law,an estranged wife,besides,aged parents and children of a man are entitled to maintenance from the latter.