Case Brief: Lalita Toppo vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

Name of the Case	Lalita Toppo vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Citation	2018 SCC Online 2301
Date of the Judgement	30.10.2018
Petitioner	Lalita Toppo
Respondent	State of Jharkhand and anr.
Bench/ Judges	Hon’ble CJ Ranjana Dogoi, Udai Umesh Lalit JJ.
Statutes Involved	Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005); Criminal Procedural Code 1973
Important Articles/ Sections	Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005)- Section 2(f), Section 3(a); Criminal Procedural Code 1973- Section 125

FACTS OF THE CASE

“Lalita Toppo is the appellant of the case, who was in a live-in relationship with a man, the respondent. 2. They had a child who is in this case respondent no. 3, but the relationship turned sour, and it ended. Lalita filed a suit for maintenance for herself and her child under section 125 of Cr.P.C. 1973. The family court allowed her petition and awarded rupees 2000 per month for her and 1000 per month for their son’s maintenance. 

Aggrieved by the decision of the family court, her partner filed a criminal appeal revision before the High Court. The High Court observed the impugned order as erroneous and, via its order, reversed the family court’s judgment. The order was reversed on the grounds that section 125 Cr.P.C. only provides for maintenance for lawfully married spouses. 

Lalita filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to challenge the High Court’s judgment. This petition was subsequently converted into a criminal appeal.

In the Supreme Court, the case was initially referred to a two-judge bench, which observed that a similar issue had arisen in the case of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr. (2011) and the need was felt to refer it to a larger bench.”

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

“Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005)

Section 2 (f): It states that a domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the ‘nature of marriage’ or are family members within together as a joint family

Section 3(a): This provision defines domestic violence in a comprehensive way that includes physical, mental, verbal, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse. 

Criminal Procedural Code 1973

Section 125: It provides for maintenance to the wife, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. This provision empowers on magistrate to order a person to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the dependent. 

LEGAL ISSUES AROSE

The following legal issues were determined by the court.

1. Whether the provision of section 125 Cr.P.C. applies only to the legally wedded spouse and not to those living under a live-in relationship?
2. Whether the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 allow a woman living under a live-in relationship to seek and claim maintenance?
3. Whether the scope of ‘domestic relationship’ under the DV Act is inclusive of live-in partners?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT’S SIDE

“The learned counsel from the appellant’s side made the following arguments,

1. They contended that she was entitled to maintenance as she was living in a relationship with him for a long period of time.
2. The council asserted that the intention of the Domestic Violence Act was to provide protection to women from domestic violence and economic deprivation, which is enumerated under section 3(a), and its scope should be extended to include those women who are in a live-in relationship.
3. The council highlighted that the Domestic Violence Act recognises relationships like marriage and all those stakeholders are entitled to claim all the relief under the said act, such as for maintenance, residence orders and protection orders”.

ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT’S SIDE

“The learned counsel from the respondent’s side made the following contentions,

1.  Use of the term ‘wife’ under the domestic violence act rules out the possibility of the provisions of the act extending towards wives who are not lawfully wedded.
2. Counsel placed Reliance upon the earlier Supreme Court judgement named Yamunabai Anant Rao Adhav v.  Anant Rao Shivram Adhav and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat, which ruled that women in live in relationships are not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. They contended that extending the provision towards partners in live-in relationships would blur the line between marriage and other relationships, and therefore, Lalitha should not be entitled to maintenance”.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED

“The Supreme Court ruled that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 will be enacted to address the limitation of existing laws, and that includes extending the provision by protecting women from domestic violence even to those who are in a non-traditional relationship.

The court observed that section 2(f)  of the Domestic Violence Act also includes the term ‘relationships in the nature of marriage’, thereby covering live-in relationships.

The bench also observed that section 3 (a) of the 2005 Act explicitly includes economic abuse as a form of domestic violence, which is considered a ground for the aggrieved woman to seek maintenance and other reliefs.

The inclusive definition of ‘ domestic relationship’ and ‘domestic violence’ ensures that women in non-traditional relationships are not left vulnerable and without proper legal recourse.

The court held that earlier judgments that denied maintenance to women who were living in relationships were delivered before the enactment of the 2005 Act. And now, after such enactment, the cases must be viewed from a different perspective that promotes equity and Justice.

The court directs Lalita, the appellant, to approach the appropriate forum under the Domestic Violence Act, which will decide the matter expeditiously”. 

CONCLUSION

“This judgement is a Landmark case in recognising the rights of women who are in a live-in relationship. Through this judgment, the court set a new benchmark in providing legal remedies against domestic violence and economic abuse. This case clarifies that women in live in relationships are entitled to maintenance and other reliefs under the 2005 Act even if the case is not maintainable under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This judgment served a much-needed legal reform for the vulnerable section of society”.