Important Supreme Court and Bombay HC Judgments on 'relationship in the nature of marriage' provided under Domestic violence Act

 

1) Whether is distinction between a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' provided under Domestic violence Act and live- in relationship?

33. In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married:

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to marry.

(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

(see 'Common Law Marriage' in Wikipedia on Google)

In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a 'domestic relationship'.

34. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage'

35. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live in relationship'. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2028-2029 of 2010 

Decided On: 21.10.2010

D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ.

Author:Markandey Katju, J.

Citation:MANU/SC/0872/2010,AIR2011SC479,(2010)10SCC469,(2011)1SCC(Cri)59

https://www.lawweb.in/2023/12/whether-is-distinction-between.html

2) Supreme Court guidelines for testing when live in relationship is in nature of marriage

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2009 of 2013 

Decided On: 26.11.2013

 Indra Sarma  Vs.  V.K.V. Sarma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/07/guidelines-of-supreme-court-for-testing.html

3) Woman living with married person is not live in relationship;Bombay HC 

Over all view of the evidence of all the witnesses and silence on

the part of respondent no.2 on vital facts of the case, clearly indicate that

respondent no.2 knew that the applicant was a married person and he had

children from his wife. Respondent no.2 also knew that the applicant had

been staying with his wife. Despite that, she had maintained relationship

with the applicant. In my opinion, the said relationship cannot be relationship

in the nature of marriage. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent no.2

was “aggrieved person” within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act. She

was obviously therefore, not entitled for any relief under Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 341 OF 2014

Deepak @ Gajanan Ramrao Kanegaonkar,

V

The State of Maharashtra

 CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.

 DATED : JULY 01, 2015

 Citation: 2015(4)BomCR(Cri)406, 

https://www.lawweb.in/2015/07/woman-living-with-married-person-is-not.html

Print Page