Padmashree Horticulturist Gets SC Relief Against Woman Who Claimed to Be His Wife

New Delhi: "I am a Christian. Why will I apply sindoor to marry someone?"

This was one of the arguments that Padmashree Manmohan Attavar was compelled to raise before the Supreme Court to make sure he could live in his own house in Bengaluru.

The 84-year-old horticulturist had lost the house to a woman, who claimed he married her in New Delhi 19 years ago by applying sindoor (vermilion) on her forehead.

The woman, claiming to be a former editor with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), pursued legal recourse and filed cases under Domestic Violence Act and other provisions to seek status of the 'wife' of Attavar, whose legally wedded spouse had passed away in 2010.

While subordinate courts did not grant relief to the 62-year-old woman, the Karnataka High Court came to her rescue.

In September, 2016, the HC stayed all proceedings in multiple cases instituted by her against Attavar, and ordered that she could occupy the house of the recipient of the fourth highest civilian award from the Government of India in 1998 in Bengaluru's Jayanagar.

The HC further withdrew from the Sessions Court the domestic violence case for adjudicating the matter by itself.

Attavar came to the Supreme Court, complaining about the HC order. His counsel pointed out that it was nobody's case that the chairman of Indo-American Hybrid Seeds ever lived with the woman in the Bengaluru house. Therefore, the house was not a "shared household" over which the complainant could claim a right, added the counsel.

A bench of Justices Rohinton F Nariman and Sanjay K Kaul agreed with Attavar's submission, noting the Bengaluru house was certainly not a "shared household".

"In order for the respondent (woman) to succeed, it was necessary that the two parties had lived in a domestic relationship in the household. However, the parties have never lived together in the property in question. It is not as if the respondent has been subsequently excluded from the enjoyment of the property or thrown out by the appellant in an alleged relationship which goes back 20 years," held the bench.

The apex court set aside the HC order, restoring Attavar's exclusive right to reside in the Bengaluru house.

It also quashed another order by the HC whereby the sessions court case was transferred. The bench noted there was no justification for talking away right of one appeal from Attavar, who was otherwise entitled to first hearing by a sessions court and appeal before the HC.

The apex court also underlined: "We may note for the purpose of record that as per the appellant, he is a Christian and thus there could be no question of visiting any temple and marrying the respondent by applying 'kumkum', and that too when the wife of the appellant was alive."