Rights of Women in Invalid Marriages

Geeta’s case posed a new challenge to us in the realm of matrimonial home. The concept of matrimonial home by its terminology itself assumes a relationship of `matrimony’ between the man and woman. Geeta was the second wife of a Hindu man who was forcing her to leave the house wherein she had resided with him as his `socially recognized’ wife for the last thirteen years. The question for us was to see if it was possible to translate this social recognition into a legal recognition of her rights.

Geeta’s husband had filed for divorce when they first met. A few months later he wrongly informed her that he was divorced and they performed an informal ceremony of marriage in the house in the presence of their immediate family. Subsequently they had a son. Gradually, over time, the relationship between them deteriorated and Vivek began to assault her, deny her maintenance and was constantly threatening to throw her out of the house. On one occasion when she and her son were out of the house, Vivek threw all of their belongings out, changed the lock and tore down the entire interiors. The flooring was removed, the doors were broken, the toilets blocked and electric wiring removed, making it impossible for her to reside in the house. Being a determined and strong willed person, Geeta broke open the lock and re-entered the house.

To dispossess her, the husband filed a suit in the City Civil Court and alleged that Gita is only his mistress and there is no legal relationship between himself and Geeta as he was still married. He had failed to obtain a decree of divorce against his first wife which fact he was using today against Geeta. In a packed courtroom Vivek’s lawyer would refer to Geeta as a `keep’, `mistress’, `concubine’ only to drive home the fact that in law she had no right. Amidst jeering and laughter we argued the matter for three days to obtain an order in her favour. The court considered our argument of the changing nature of relationships and how a man taking advantage of his own wrong cannot take away a second wife’s right to shelter, and granted us an order in her favour. Later we filed for maintenance for her and her son in the Family Court based on a Supreme Court ruling. The husband tried various ways to throttle her rights, but finally we were able to obtain an interim order of maintenance in her favour.