Soni Satti
A Magistrate’s Court ruled that a woman’s decision to change or not change her name or surname after her marriage does not affect her marital status, while ruling on an appeal for maintenance by a woman married to a police constable.
The court stated, “It is not the rule of law or mandatory that a woman should have changed her name or surname after her marriage or remarriage and use the surname of her present husband with her own name. In my view, it is the sweet choice and the right of any woman or any human being to use any name or surname as per his or her own choice. Further, in my view, changing or not changing the name or surname by any married woman does not make any effect on her marital status,”
The court’s remark came after a police officer’s claim that the woman was only using her name and the surname of her deceased former partner.
The woman in her application stated that she had married the constable in 1996, but the husband’s behaviour toward her had abruptly changed, and that he had left her in 2009.
She was left with just an Rs 800 pension and she, therefore, filed for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The man contended that he was already married and denied that he was married to her. The man further stated that as a police constable, he had just sought to assist her in a case brought against her under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and that she had taken advantage of his kindness by filing a false case.
The facts established that they lived together in the same home, is triggering the Act’s provisions. According to the woman’s admission, the man said that there was no formal marriage ceremony.
To which, the court responded, “But, in India, there are different forms and ceremonies of marriage in different religions, castes, and communities. It appears that a proper ceremony was performed in the marriage of the applicant and the respondent. Therefore, it is proved that the applicant has shared the household with the respondent in the nature of her marriage,”
The facts also revealed that the man was still married to another woman was only discovered in 2009, and that the woman could not be found liable because the man had withheld this knowledge.
After hearing the contentions of both the parties the court directed the accused man to pay Rs 7,000 in maintenance from the date of the application in 2010, as well as provide the woman with housing that met his standard of living within two months.
The court also issued restraining orders prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence against the victim. The court ruled that the woman had not shown any photographic or oral proof to establish and quantify the physical and mental harm she had suffered and that her claims in this regard were ambiguous, ordering her to pay Rs 5,000 in damages instead of the Rs 4 lakh, she had requested.