Apex court for law to give maintenance to ’second wife’
October 4th, 2010 - 8:32 pm ICT by IANSNew Delhi, Oct 4 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday said there was need to develop a concept of palimony (on the lines of alimony) in order to give compensation to a man’s “second wife” if she is deserted after the couple have lived together.
“Why shouldn’t we develop a law on the lines of palimony - as is done in the American state of California - in order to compensate the ’second wife’, who can’t claim alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act,” said an apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur.
The court appointed advocate Jayant Bhushan as amicus curiae to assist the court.
The concept of palimony was developed in 1977 by the California Supreme Court in Marvin vs. Marvin case. The concept has its origin in a case wherein Michelle Triola Marvin filed a suit against actor Lee Marvin seeking maintenance compensation.
Though Michelle did not succeed in her suit but her celebrated divorce attorney Mitchelson coined this word by merging the words “pal” and “alimony”.
Michelle Marvin claimed that in 1971 she and actor Lee Marvin who was already married started living together.
Michelle claimed that she was promised support for life by actor Lee Marvin.
She lost the suit because she could not prove the contract between the two that gave her a share in the actor’s property. However, since then the law on palimony has developed considerably.
On Monday, the apex court pulled up petitioner D. Velusamy who took the cover of the definition of “wife” under the Hindu Marriage Act to deny his second wife D. Patchaiammal any compensation.
Justice Katju said: “For 14 years you enjoyed her company and now you want to escape the (payment of) compensation.”
“You enjoyed her youth and now you pay her,” said Justice Katju.
When petitioner‘s counsel argued that under the Hindu Marriage Act he was under no obligation to pay alimony to his “second wife”, Justice Katju said: “We know that. Don’t pay her alimony but pay her palimony.”
In the instant case, Velusamy, in his second wedding, married Patchaiammal in 1986. In 2001, she filed a maintenance suit. The Madras High court granted her the maintenance of Rs.500 per month.
Velusamy challenged the grant of Rs.500 monthly maintenance to Patchaiammal.
- Apex court rejects woman's alimony claim - Oct 21, 2010
- Supreme Court rejects plea to review verdict on 'keep' (Lead) - Mar 17, 2011
- Lee Marvin's ex dies at 75 - Nov 02, 2009
- Court opens new route for 'second wife' to claim alimony - Apr 28, 2010
- Live-in relationship no guarantee to alimony (Lead) - Oct 21, 2010
- Share retirement funds with estranged wife, court tells man - Oct 29, 2011
- Maid lived as wife, should get maintenance: high court - Apr 19, 2011
- Exchange of garlands is not marriage: Apex court - Sep 22, 2010
- 'Separated wife entitled to maintenance as per husband's financial status' - Feb 26, 2012
- Wealthy wife ordered to pay maintenance to husband - Mar 31, 2011
- Maintenance can't be denied to adulterous ex-wife: Court - Nov 20, 2011
- Forget about freedom, apex court tells married men - Jun 10, 2010
- 'Domestic violence law gives no right to seek maintenance' - Aug 31, 2010
- Second appeal under Hindu Marriage Act allowed, rules court - Oct 08, 2010
- Actor Raghuvir Yadav released from jail - Jun 07, 2010
Tags: actor lee marvin, advocate, alimony, apex, apex court, bhushan, california supreme court, counsel argued that, court bench, divorce attorney, hindu marriage act, lee marvin, marriage, michelle triola marvin, New Delhi, obligation, palimony, petitioner, second wife, state of california