Litigants who file petitions either for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights must first establish the conduct of a valid marriage under law. Live in relationships, however long and continuous they might have been for, will not confer any legal right upon the couple to raise a matrimonial dispute, the Madras High Court has ruled.
Justices S. Vaidyanathan and R. Vijayakumar held so while dismissing an appeal preferred by a woman who had pressed for restitution of conjugal rights with a man whom she had never married legally. They held that a Family Court in Coimbatore had rightly rejected her plea and hence there was no merit in the present appeal.
According to the appellant, a 42-year-old mother of two children, her first husband had deserted her and thereafter she had obtained divorce from him. In 2013, she reportedly married the present respondent by exchanging rings and by him making her wear a Metti on her toes in the presence of their close relatives and friends.
Claiming that she had given large amounts of money to the respondent after the reported marriage, the appellant claimed that he began to live away from her since 2016 and therefore she was seeking a direction to him to live with her. On the other hand, the respondent flatly denied any marriage having taken place between them.
He also pointed out to a civil suit filed by him before a District Munsif Court in Coimbatore to restrain the appellant from claiming him to be her husband. The respondent stated that he was a Christian, whereas the appellant was a Hindu. Even according to her, the marriage had taken place neither in the Christian way nor the Hindu way.
The marriage was also not registered under the Special Marriages Act of 1954. Therefore, there was no husband-wife relationship between them, he contended. Finding force in his submissions, the judges said the woman appeared to have given a matrimonial colour to some commercial dispute with the respondent.
They pointed out that the woman had issued a legal notice to the respondent with respect to monetary transactions in 2017 and it had no mention about him being her husband. It was only in a subsequent police complaint alleging misuse of a cheque that she had referred him to be her husband and gone ahead to seek restitution of conjugal rights.
The judges also pointed out that the woman had not produced any divorce decree obtained against her first husband, despite claiming to have divorced him, and said: “this will clearly show that the appellant continues to be the wife of another person whose name, the appellant has not chosen to disclose.”
Authoring the verdict, Justice Vijayakumar wrote: “The Family Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights only between parties to a marriage. In the present case, this court has already observed that there is no marriage at all between the appellant and the respondent herein.
“Even assuming that there was long and continuous cohabitation or the parties were living together will not give rise to a cause of action for filing an application for restitution of conjugal rights. Long cohabitation or living together will not confer upon the parties any legal right to raise a matrimonial dispute before the Family Court.”
