162

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION
Crl. M. P. No. ____________________of 2010
IN
REVIEW PETITION (Crl) NO. _________ OF 2010
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2028-2029 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

Partners for Law in Development & Ors. … Petitioners

Versus

D. Patchaiammal ... Respondent

AND IN MATTER OF:

D. Velusamy ... Appellant

Versus

D. Patchaiammal ... Respondent

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE

REVIEW PETITION

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

and his Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India
NEW DELHI.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the aforesaid Review Petition is being filed by

seeking review of the Judgement dated 21.10.2010 passed

by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2028-2029 of

2010, in which this Hon’ble Court while dealing with an

appeal arising out of proceedings in an application under

section 125 Cr.P.C. has gone into the larger issue of

 163
dealing with the definition of the term “relationships in the

nature of marriage” which has repercussions with regard

to social and gender justice.

2. Applicant/Petitioner No. 1 “Partners for Law in

Development” (hereinafter referred to as PLD), is a non

profit legal resource and advocacy group founded in 1998

working in the field of social justice and women’s rights in

India. The organisation is a public charitable trust

registered under The Indian Trusts Act 1882, with a

mission to advance social justice in society through the

law. As a legal resource group, PLD contributes to the

social sector through three programme streams – (i)

creation of new knowledge through action research,

production of education materials on law and gender

justice; (ii) building capacities of stakeholders (NGOs,

social workers, lawyers and government) through training

workshops, perspective development and technical

assistance; and (iii) undertaking policy advocacy at the

national, regional and international arena. In all activities,

PLD works with other stakeholders, especially community

based organisations through whom PLD also undertakes

field work.

One of PLD’s key areas of field work has been on

women and access to justice, which allowed PLD to

examine mediation by NGOs and district centres at the

community level. This study provided insights into the

 164
types of conjugal relationships that exist and the nature of

abuse and violations women face across all types of

conjugal relationships. These insights led PLD to

undertake further field work to document relationships in

the nature of marriage, and the protection gaps for women

in these relationships. The impugned judgement (in D.

Velusamy vs. D. Patchaimmal) deals with the definition of

relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’ and involves issues

related to social and gender justice, PLD is interested in

seeking a review of the judgement.

3. Applicant/Petitioner No. 2 to 5 are community based

organizations providing, amongst other services, crisis

support to women. Petitioner No., The Academy for Socio-

Legal Studies (ASLS) is a human rights organization based

in Jaipur with a focus on advocating and asserting rights

for the marginalized populations since 1995. It was

registered in 1995 under the Rajasthan Societies

Registration Act 1958. The organization was founded by

some progressive advocates with commitment to rule of

law and principles of natural justice. Petitioner No. 3,

Chotanagpur Sankritik Sangh (CSS), was established in

1968 in Ranchi with the objective of preserving and

promoting the culture of the Chotanagpur plateau, and to

address the needs of the most vulnerable sections of

society in that region. It is registered under the Societies

Registration Act 1860. Petitioner No. 4, Friends

 165
Association for Rural Reconstruction (FARR) was

established in 1983 and is an organization that works

primarily with the adivasi population of Kalahandi District

in Orissa, undertaking empowerment programmes,

building leadership of local women, to enable them to

assert rights. It is registered under the Societies

Registration Act 1860. Petitioner No. 5, Mahila Jan

Adhikar Samiti (MJAS), based in Ajmer, has been active

since 1997 in central areas of Rajasthan on issues of

violence against women in the home and the workplace. It

was registered in 2000 under the Rajasthan Societies

Registration Act 1958.

4. Petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 are senior reputed

academicians in the fields of women’s studies, history and

gender justice, with an impressive record of publications,

and association with gender justice causes and activism.

Petitioner Number 6, Dr. Mary E. John has been working

in the fields of women’s studies and feminist politics for

many years. She was Associate Professor and Deputy

Director of the Women’s Studies Programme at JNU from

2001-2006. She has published numerous books and

articles, including recently having edited ‘Women’s Studies

in India: A Reader’, New Delhi (Penguin, 2008). She is

currently the Director of Centre for Women’s Development

Studies (CWDS), the premier national centre on women’s

studies in New Delhi. Petitioner Number 7, Professor Uma

 166
Chakravarti, taught history at Miranda House, University

of Delhi, from 1966 to 2004. She is one of the leading

feminist historians of India and South Asia, and regularly

writes about the intersection of caste, religion and

sexuality. Among her published works include: ‘Rewriting

history: the life and times of Pandita Ramabai’ (Kali for

Women, 1998); ‘Social Dimensions of early Buddhism’

(Oxford University Press, 1987); ‘The Delhi Riots: Three

Days in the Life of a Nation’ (co-edited with Nandita

Haksar, South Asia Books 1987); ‘Shadow lives: Writings

on Widowhood’ (co-edited with Preeti Gill, Zubaab 2001)

and ‘From Myths to Markets: Essays on Gender’ (co-edited

with Kumkum Sangari, Manohar Publications 2001). She

has been associated with the women's movement and the

democratic rights movement for the past forty years. Both

these Petitioners serve as advisors to the action research

undertaken by Petitioner Number 1 (in collaboration with

community organizations including Petitioners Number 2

to 5), to give direction, guide methodology and process

findings of the research. The Petitioners Number 2 to 7

therefore have considerable knowledge and experience of

women’s realities in the family in rural and small town

India, as they work closely with the community, through

crisis support and mediation services and through

research respectively, and seek to provide the court

information and assistance in understanding the field of

 167
‘relationships in the nature of marriage’ in the Indian

context, for reviewing the judgment in the present case.

5. The Petitioners believe that the definition of the

“Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” and certain

observations will have far reaching consequences on the

Society in general and women in particular, the Petitioners

being involved in the issue this Hon’ble Court has dealt

with in the impugned Judgment, through this Review

Petition, wishes to assist this Hon’ble Court in coming to

the appropriate finding.

PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice it is therefore most
respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:

[a] Grant the Petitioner, permission to file the present

Review Petition;

[b] Pass such other and further order (s) and /or
direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice:

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE

PETITIONER. AS IN DUTY BOUND. SHALL FOR EVER
PRAY.
FILED BY:

Ms. KAMINI JAISWAL

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

Filed on: 10.12.2010

 168
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION
Crl. M. P. No. ____________________of 2010
IN
REVIEW PETITION (Crl) NO. _________ OF 2010
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2028-2029 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

Partners for Law in Development & Ors. … Petitioners

Versus

D. Patchaiammal ... Respondent

AND IN MATTER OF:

D. Velusamy ... Appellant

Versus

D. Patchaiammal ... Respondent

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

and his Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India
NEW DELHI.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the aforesaid Review Petition is being filed by

seeking review of the Judgement dated 21.10.2010 passed

by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2028-2029 of

2010, in which this Hon’ble Court while dealing with an

appeal arising out of proceedings in an application under

section 125 Cr.P.C. has gone into the larger issue of

 169
dealing with the definition of the term “relationships in the

nature of marriage” which has repercussions with regard

to social and gender justice.

2. Applicant/Petitioner No. 1 “Partners for Law in

Development” (hereinafter referred to as PLD), is a non

profit legal resource and advocacy group founded in 1998

working in the field of social justice and women’s rights in

India. The organisation is a public charitable trust

registered under The Indian Trusts Act 1882, with a

mission to advance social justice in society through the

law. As a legal resource group, PLD contributes to the

social sector through three programme streams – (i)

creation of new knowledge through action research,

production of education materials on law and gender

justice; (ii) building capacities of stakeholders (NGOs,

social workers, lawyers and government) through training

workshops, perspective development and technical

assistance; and (iii) undertaking policy advocacy at the

national, regional and international arena. In all activities,

PLD works with other stakeholders, especially community

based organisations through whom PLD also undertakes

field work.

One of PLD’s key areas of field work has been on

women and access to justice, which allowed PLD to

examine mediation by NGOs and district centres at the

community level. This study provided insights into the

 170
types of conjugal relationships that exist and the nature of

abuse and violations women face across all types of

conjugal relationships. These insights led PLD to

undertake further field work to document relationships in

the nature of marriage, and the protection gaps for women

in these relationships. The impugned judgement (in D.

Velusamy vs. D. Patchaimmal) deals with the definition of

relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’ and involves issues

related to social and gender justice, PLD is interested in

seeking a review of the judgement.

3. Applicant/Petitioner No. 2 to 5 are community based

organizations providing, amongst other services, crisis

support to women. Petitioner No., The Academy for Socio-

Legal Studies (ASLS) is a human rights organization based

in Jaipur with a focus on advocating and asserting rights

for the marginalized populations since 1995. It was

registered in 1995 under the Rajasthan Societies

Registration Act 1958. The organization was founded by

some progressive advocates with commitment to rule of

law and principles of natural justice. Petitioner No. 3,

Chotanagpur Sankritik Sangh (CSS), was established in

1968 in Ranchi with the objective of preserving and

promoting the culture of the Chotanagpur plateau, and to

address the needs of the most vulnerable sections of

society in that region. It is registered under the Societies

Registration Act 1860. Petitioner No. 4, Friends

 171
Association for Rural Reconstruction (FARR) was

established in 1983 and is an organization that works

primarily with the adivasi population of Kalahandi District

in Orissa, undertaking empowerment programmes,

building leadership of local women, to enable them to

assert rights. It is registered under the Societies

Registration Act 1860. Petitioner No. 5, Mahila Jan

Adhikar Samiti (MJAS), based in Ajmer, has been active

since 1997 in central areas of Rajasthan on issues of

violence against women in the home and the workplace. It

was registered in 2000 under the Rajasthan Societies

Registration Act 1958.

4. Petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 are senior reputed

academicians in the fields of women’s studies, history and

gender justice, with an impressive record of publications,

and association with gender justice causes and activism.

Petitioner Number 6, Dr. Mary E. John has been working

in the fields of women’s studies and feminist politics for

many years. She was Associate Professor and Deputy

Director of the Women’s Studies Programme at JNU from

2001-2006. She has published numerous books and

articles, including recently having edited ‘Women’s Studies

in India: A Reader’, New Delhi (Penguin, 2008). She is

currently the Director of Centre for Women’s Development

Studies (CWDS), the premier national centre on women’s

studies in New Delhi. Petitioner Number 7, Professor Uma

 172
Chakravarti, taught history at Miranda House, University

of Delhi, from 1966 to 2004. She is one of the leading

feminist historians of India and South Asia, and regularly

writes about the intersection of caste, religion and

sexuality. Among her published works include: ‘Rewriting

history: the life and times of Pandita Ramabai’ (Kali for

Women, 1998); ‘Social Dimensions of early Buddhism’

(Oxford University Press, 1987); ‘The Delhi Riots: Three

Days in the Life of a Nation’ (co-edited with Nandita

Haksar, South Asia Books 1987); ‘Shadow lives: Writings

on Widowhood’ (co-edited with Preeti Gill, Zubaab 2001)

and ‘From Myths to Markets: Essays on Gender’ (co-edited

with Kumkum Sangari, Manohar Publications 2001). She

has been associated with the women's movement and the

democratic rights movement for the past forty years. Both

these Petitioners serve as advisors to the action research

undertaken by Petitioner Number 1 (in collaboration with

community organizations including Petitioners Number 2

to 5), to give direction, guide methodology and process

findings of the research. The Petitioners Number 2 to 7

therefore have considerable knowledge and experience of

women’s realities in the family in rural and small town

India, as they work closely with the community, through

crisis support and mediation services and through

research respectively, and seek to provide the court

information and assistance in understanding the field of

 173
‘relationships in the nature of marriage’ in the Indian

context, for reviewing the judgment in the present case.

5. That the Petitioners were not party to the impugned

Judgment, and only after the said Judgment was widely

reported in the media, they came to know about it, and

then only one the proper discussion with the experts and

the lawyers, they were suggested to seek review of the said

Judgment and thus the delay in filing this Review Petition

occurred. The delay occurred is inadvertent and bonafide,

irreparable loss may be caused to the society if the same

is not condoned.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may most graciously be
pleased to:

a) Condone the delay of ___ days in the filing of the

present Review Petition against the judgment dated
21.10.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 2028-2029 of 2010.

b) Pass any such further and/or other Order(s) as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

FILED BY:

Ms. KAMINI JAISWAL

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

Filed On: 10.12.2010

 174
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION
Crl. M. P. No. ____________________of 2010
IN
REVIEW PETITION (Crl) No. _________ OF 2010
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2028-2029 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

Partners for Law in Development & Ors. … Petitioners

Versus

D. Patchaiammal ... Respondent

AND IN MATTER OF:

D. Velusamy ... Appellant

Versus

D. Patchaiammal ... Respondent

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO

PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

and his Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India
NEW DELHI.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the aforesaid Review Petition is being filed by

seeking review of the Judgement dated 21.10.2010 passed

by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2028-2029 of

2010, in which this Hon’ble Court while dealing with an

appeal arising out of proceedings in an application under

section 125 Cr.P.C. has gone into the larger issue of

dealing with the definition of the term “relationships in the

 175
nature of marriage” which has repercussions with regard

to social and gender justice.

2. Applicant/Petitioner No. 1 “Partners for Law in

Development” (hereinafter referred to as PLD), is a non

profit legal resource and advocacy group founded in 1998

working in the field of social justice and women’s rights in

India. The organisation is a public charitable trust

registered under The Indian Trusts Act 1882, with a

mission to advance social justice in society through the

law. As a legal resource group, PLD contributes to the

social sector through three programme streams – (i)

creation of new knowledge through action research,

production of education materials on law and gender

justice; (ii) building capacities of stakeholders (NGOs,

social workers, lawyers and government) through training

workshops, perspective development and technical

assistance; and (iii) undertaking policy advocacy at the

national, regional and international arena. In all activities,

PLD works with other stakeholders, especially community

based organisations through whom PLD also undertakes

field work.

One of PLD’s key areas of field work has been on

women and access to justice, which allowed PLD to

examine mediation by NGOs and district centres at the

community level. This study provided insights into the

types of conjugal relationships that exist and the nature of

 176
abuse and violations women face across all types of

conjugal relationships. These insights led PLD to

undertake further field work to document relationships in

the nature of marriage, and the protection gaps for women

in these relationships. The impugned judgement (in D.

Velusamy vs. D. Patchaimmal) deals with the definition of

relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’ and involves issues

related to social and gender justice, PLD is interested in

seeking a review of the judgement.

3. Applicant/Petitioner No. 2 to 5 are community based

organizations providing, amongst other services, crisis

support to women. Petitioner No., The Academy for Socio-

Legal Studies (ASLS) is a human rights organization based

in Jaipur with a focus on advocating and asserting rights

for the marginalized populations since 1995. It was

registered in 1995 under the Rajasthan Societies

Registration Act 1958. The organization was founded by

some progressive advocates with commitment to rule of

law and principles of natural justice. Petitioner No. 3,

Chotanagpur Sankritik Sangh (CSS), was established in

1968 in Ranchi with the objective of preserving and

promoting the culture of the Chotanagpur plateau, and to

address the needs of the most vulnerable sections of

society in that region. It is registered under the Societies

Registration Act 1860. Petitioner No. 4, Friends

Association for Rural Reconstruction (FARR) was

 177
established in 1983 and is an organization that works

primarily with the adivasi population of Kalahandi District

in Orissa, undertaking empowerment programmes,

building leadership of local women, to enable them to

assert rights. It is registered under the Societies

Registration Act 1860. Petitioner No. 5, Mahila Jan

Adhikar Samiti (MJAS), based in Ajmer, has been active

since 1997 in central areas of Rajasthan on issues of

violence against women in the home and the workplace. It

was registered in 2000 under the Rajasthan Societies

Registration Act 1958.

4. Petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 are senior reputed

academicians in the fields of women’s studies, history and

gender justice, with an impressive record of publications,

and association with gender justice causes and activism.

Petitioner Number 6, Dr. Mary E. John has been working

in the fields of women’s studies and feminist politics for

many years. She was Associate Professor and Deputy

Director of the Women’s Studies Programme at JNU from

2001-2006. She has published numerous books and

articles, including recently having edited ‘Women’s Studies

in India: A Reader’, New Delhi (Penguin, 2008). She is

currently the Director of Centre for Women’s Development

Studies (CWDS), the premier national centre on women’s

studies in New Delhi. Petitioner Number 7, Professor Uma

Chakravarti, taught history at Miranda House, University

 178
of Delhi, from 1966 to 2004. She is one of the leading

feminist historians of India and South Asia, and regularly

writes about the intersection of caste, religion and

sexuality. Among her published works include: ‘Rewriting

history: the life and times of Pandita Ramabai’ (Kali for

Women, 1998); ‘Social Dimensions of early Buddhism’

(Oxford University Press, 1987); ‘The Delhi Riots: Three

Days in the Life of a Nation’ (co-edited with Nandita

Haksar, South Asia Books 1987); ‘Shadow lives: Writings

on Widowhood’ (co-edited with Preeti Gill, Zubaab 2001)

and ‘From Myths to Markets: Essays on Gender’ (co-edited

with Kumkum Sangari, Manohar Publications 2001). She

has been associated with the women's movement and the

democratic rights movement for the past forty years. Both

these Petitioners serve as advisors to the action research

undertaken by Petitioner Number 1 (in collaboration with

community organizations including Petitioners Number 2

to 5), to give direction, guide methodology and process

findings of the research. The Petitioners Number 2 to 7

therefore have considerable knowledge and experience of

women’s realities in the family in rural and small town

India, as they work closely with the community, through

crisis support and mediation services and through

research respectively, and seek to provide the court

information and assistance in understanding the field of

‘relationships in the nature of marriage’ in the Indian

context, for reviewing the judgment in the present case.

 179
5. The Petitioners believe that the definition of the

“Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” and certain

observations will have far reaching consequences on the

Society in general and women in particular, the Petitioners

being involved in the issue this Hon’ble Court has dealt

with in the impugned Judgment, through this Review

Petition, wishes to assist this Hon’ble Court in coming to

the appropriate finding. Since the Petitioners have

considerable experience in dealing with such issue and is

also in possession of various relevant documents, the

Petitioners also wish to address this Hon’ble Court on the

issue.

PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice it is therefore most
respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:

[a] Grant the Petitioners, permission to Oral Argument’s

of Review Petition;

[b] Pass such other and further order (s) and /or
direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice:

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE

PETITIONER. AS IN DUTY BOUND. SHALL FOR EVER
PRAY.
FILED BY:

Ms. KAMINI JAISWAL

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
Filed on: 10.12.2010