Upgrad LLM

supreme court rejects plea to review verdict on 'keep'

NA

Good news for those who want to use the word" Keep" /Concubones, not to so those who do not want to call women of the said descripttion keep or concubines on the

 

India

Supreme Court rejects plea to review verdict on 'keep' (Lead)
New Delhi |Wednesday, 2011 11:05:05 PM IST
 



 

 

The Supreme Court Wednesday rejected a petition of women's organisation Mahila Dakshata Samiti seeking the review of its earlier verdict in which a woman cohabiting with a man was described as a "keep".

 

The apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur said, "Having carefully gone through the review petition and connected papers, we see no reason to grant permission to Mahila Dakshata Samiti to file this review petition. Hence, the application for permission to file review petition is rejected."

The organisation sought the review of the court's Oct 21, 2010, judgment wherein it said: "If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for s*xual purpose and/or as a servant, it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage."

The petition said that the use of the expression 'keep' was derogatory. It discriminated against women on the grounds of marital status.

The review petition sought the expunction of the observation of the court and said it was not warranted in the case that was before it.

The court said that Mahila Dakshata Samiti's review petition could not be entertained, as it was not a party to the case either before the apex court, high court or the trial court.

The court made the observation while setting aside a Madras High Court verdict that recognised the "second" woman in the life of D. Velusamy as his "wife" and awarded her maintenance of Rs.500 per month.

The apex court held that both the trial court and the high court decided in favour of "second" wife D. Patchalammal without issuing notice to Valusamy's first wife Lakshmi and affording her a hearing.

Velusamy - senior grade teacher in Coimbatore - married Lakshmi June 25, 1980.

Velusamy married Patchalammal Sep 14, 1986. After staying together for two-three years at Patchalammal father's residence, Velusamy deserted her.

The court noted that Velusamy deserted Patchalammal either in 1988 or 1989. She moved the family court in 2001 seeking maintenance.

--Indo-Asian News Service pk/rah/vt


Total likes : 3 times

 
Reply   
 
propra

Review Petition is rejected at the 'admission/registration' of plaint stage!! and for technical reasons!!

"The court said that Mahila Dakshata Samiti's review petition could not be entertained, as it was not a party to the case either before the apex court, high court or the trial court"

 

Hon SC hasn't said anywhere that 'keep' was a correct word!

 

 


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 



:P

 
Reply   
 
NA

Thank you very much Kushan Ji. ....for underlinining the technical aspect...

Disappointnment for some in the sense that it was not treated as an issue of women's rights not to be called "Keep"...and good news for those in the sense that the review petition itself is rejected to discuss this issue and have a verdict.....

Advocate you are !! 


Total likes : 2 times

 
Reply   
 
UNEMPLOYED

let us share what mr kushan underlines.

 
Reply   
 
NA

@ Arup Ji

Sorry !! 

In fact the technical aspect was underlined by Jamai of Law, and not Kushan Ji. 

I thank  Jamai of Law then...!

 


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
UNEMPLOYED

i demanded  the same (in regard to use of the word 'keep' in legal papers like verdict etc) in my petition (wp) at sc but i do not know what happened with it.

 

however what mr jamai says are correct.


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

 

The organisation sought the review of the court's Oct 21, 2010,

judgment wherein it said: "If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for s*xual purpose and/or as a servant, it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage."

 

 

 

 

The petition said that the use of the expression 'keep' was derogatory. It discriminated against women on the grounds of marital status.There is a  difference between wife , prostitute, sister, girlfriend etc.


Ambikaji,Then what word  SC should be used instead of keep?


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
NA

 

@ Kushan Ji . 

I think in the past lot of discussion had happened over the topic. If I get back to that discussion and see the choices given by different authors, I would prefer to call her as other woman , rather than a keep or a concubine. 


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

Ok,Ambikaji

I got your point giving respect to all women including "other women" also.:P

I also having the same view.Other women is a proper word as its not  derogatory.

But what our SC said welcomes!

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x