SUPREME COURT CASE ANALYSIS: Lalita Toppo V. State Of Jharkhand
INTRODUCTION
Domestic violence is defined as aggressive behavior shown by one party towards the other engaged in any sort of relationship. This often leads to abuse of various kinds in such a relationship. It can be both physical and emotional forms of abuse. The various categories of the same include psychological, economic, sexual, and physical. The United Nations defines it as “ ‘intimate partner violence,’ which occurs when one person in a relationship uses threat, mental abuse, manipulation, trying to hurt, injury, or financial abuse to take control of the other, and whose victim can be anyone, irrespective of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, class, or belief.”[1]
The legal aspect in India has given it a broader connotation, including sisters, widows, mothers, single women, and any woman living in the same family. As a result, both intimate partners and family members are victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence, according to Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (DV Act)[2], is any act or omission by the Respondent that damages, injures, threatens, or abuses physically, sexually, verbally, or economically. Every third woman in India experiences domestic abuse starting at the age of fifteen, according to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) conducted by the Union Health Ministry. According to the study, 31% of married women have been subjected to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse at the hands of their partners. The main source of concern is that only about 10% of these women reported being abused. Clearly, this is a major issue that must be addressed, and women must be aware of their rights and know how to defend them. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 was enacted in response to such incidents.
THE SUPREME COURT CASE
Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, 2018[3]
In the case of Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2018), heard by the Supreme Court of India, the Complainant, who was not the Respondent’s legally wedded wife, approached the Court to obtain maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, assuming she would be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
This case was heard before a 3-bench judge comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices U.U. Lalit and K.M. Joseph.
- FACTS of the CASE
In this case, the Appellant was in a live-in relationship with a man with whom she had a child. Following their divorce, the Appellant asked her spouse for financial assistance, which the Gumla Family Court granted, awarding her Rs. 2000 per month and Rs. 1000 to her child. The High Court rejected the appellant’s arguments and ruled in favour of the partner after reviewing the appeal. As a direct consequence of this, the Appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
- ISSUES identified
- If a man and woman living together as husband and wife for a long period of time raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them, and whether such a presumption empowers the woman to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?
- Is it possible for a live-in partner to seek maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005?
- JUDGEMENT of the case
In the Supreme Court, a three-judge Bench comprised of then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices U.U. Lalit and K.M. Joseph found that a live-in partner is entitled to more relief than that provided by Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bench noted that the petitioner in the case would have a remedy to seek maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act despite the fact that she is not the legally wedded wife and thus not obligated to be maintained under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court also noted that domestic violence, according to the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, includes economic abuse. Thus, in its most recent decision, the Supreme Court stated that, while the appellant is not a legally wedded wife and thus cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., she can seek maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. “Economic abuse also constitutes domestic violence,”[4] the court stated.
CONCLUSION
From this case, one can conclude that a live-in partner will be obligated to even more relief than that envisaged by Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Domestic violence in a live-in relationship giving rise to any type of abuse was redefined by this case, and excess relief was granted.