Bombay HC: Married Sister-In-Law Who Frequently Visits maternal House is Not In Domestic Relationship With the petitioner

 The law laid down by the Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi

(supra) will not assist the case of Respondent No 1 as the

Petitioner is the married sister-in-law residing in her own

matrimonial house and it cannot be said that the right of the

aggrieved person to reside in the shared household would

constitute a subsisting domestic relationship with the Petitioner. It  would have been a different matter if the Petitioner was unmarried and was residing in the shared household in which case considering the right to reside conferred by Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act, the aggrieved person could have been said to be in

subsisting domestic relationship with the Petitioner even if the

parties had never resided together in the shared household. It is

the right of the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household which constitutes domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and persons residing in the shared household. However, such are not the facts in the instant case as Petitioner is residing separately in her matrimonial house. {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.18350 OF 2023

Nil V  2. State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

Pronounced on : FEBRUARY 14, 2024

Print Page

What is Alienation of affection under matrimonial law and whether it is a tort?

ALIENATION OF AFFECTION

64. Appellant had entered into this relationship knowing well that the Respondent was a married person and encouraged bigamous relationship. By entering into such a relationship, the Appellant has committed an intentional tort, i.e. interference in the marital relationship with intentionally alienating Respondent from his family, i.e. his wife and children. If the case set up by the Appellant is accepted, we have to conclude that there has been an attempt on the part of the Appellant to alienate Respondent from his family, resulting in loss of marital relationship, companionship, assistance, loss of consortium etc., so far as the legally wedded wife and children of the Respondent are concerned, who resisted the relationship from the very inception. Marriage and family are social institutions of vital importance. Alienation of affection, in that context, is an intentional tort, as held by this Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal case (supra), which gives a cause of action to the wife and children of the Respondent to sue the Appellant for alienating the husband/father from the company of his wife/children, knowing fully well they are legally wedded wife/children of the Respondent..

  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.

Author: K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1230/2013,AIR2014SC309,(2013)15SCC755,[2013]14SCR1019.

Read full Judgment here :Click here

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines to ascertain when a live-in relationship will fall within "relationship in the nature of marriage" as per provisions of Domestic violence Act

We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" Under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will definitely give some insight to such relationships.

(1) Duration of period of relationship

Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression "at any point of time", which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

(2) Shared household

The expression has been defined Under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.

(3) Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements

Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.

(4) Domestic Arrangements

Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up keeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

(5) Sexual Relationship

Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.

(6) Children

Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.

(7) Socialization in Public

Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage.

(8) Intention and conduct of the parties

Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily determines the nature of that relationship.{Para 55}

 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.

Author: K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1230/2013,AIR2014SC309,(2013)15SCC755,[2013]14SCR1019.

Print Page

Whether family court can grant maintenance even if it is not claimed by wife?

From the careful reading of the above said provisions, it is
apparent that the court would not be empowered to grant
the relief unless sought. In the present case, it appears that
at the time of delivering judgment, the court suo motu
considered the application under section 26 of the Domestic
Violence Act thereby clearly denying an opportunity to non applicant
to meet with the same. It was obligatory on the
part of the Family Court to hear the non-applicant before
awarding maintenance under Section 26 of the Domestic
Violence Act. Since the Family Court failed for the same and
since the applicant/present non-applicant failed to establish
that she entered into domestic relationship or she was
legally married to non-applicant, she was not entitled to
relief of maintenance either under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of the
Domestic Violence Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.664 OF 2011
Gautam s/o Jairam Gavai,

V
Sau. Ragini alleged w/o Gautam,Gavai, 
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JANUARY 20, 2017.

Print Page

When widow can claim relief under domestic violence Act against IN-LAWS?

 In background of above settled legal position, if we peruse
the evidence on record it becomes clear that the complainant wife
can certainly be considered as a family member of the present
petitioner who are brother in law and sister in law of the
complainant. Therefore, relationship would not come to an end only
because of death of her husband and, therefore, she may be
considered as an aggrieved person with reference to relationship.
However, to become entitled to any relief under the Act, what is
material is living together in shared house hold with reference to
marriage or relationship with joint family. Therefore, when
evidence is to the effect that wife was residing with her husband
separately from the present petitioners, then it cannot be said that
wife is residing together in shared household, so as to attract the
provisions of Domestic Violence Act. The basic ingredients of the
Act is domestic relationship and domestic violence. Thereby, there
must be a cogent and reliable evidence that on the date of accruing
of cause of action i.e. the date when domestic violence has taken
place the complainant and accused must be found to be living
together in a shared household. Thereby, if wife or aggrieved
person is living separately from in-laws for long time, then though
their relationship as in-laws i.e. either father-in-law, mother-in-law,
brother-in-law or sister-in-law may not change, but their domestic

relationship certainly changes since they are not living together in
shared household.
8.4 Similarly, though definition of “domestic violence” provided
under Section 3 is very wide in nature, it may be applicable only
and only when “domestic relationship” is proved and not because of
natural relationship between complainant and accused. As already
recorded herein above, in the present case, the fact is some what
different, in as much as, it is undisputed fact that the complainant
is residing separately from her in laws with her husband
immediately after marriage and thereby when she was not living
together in a shared household with present petitioner though they
are her in laws, present petitioners cannot be termed as
respondent with reference to domestic relationship though there is
relationship of in-laws. The definition of respondent as per Section
2(f) makes it clear that the person must be having “domestic
relationship” with aggrieved person and that proviso is permitting
to file complaint against relative of the husband and thereby
though complaint can be filed against in-laws, in my opinion it can
be filed only when they are living together in a shared household
where cause of action arises and not in all other cases when
aggrieved person is not residing with her in-laws when cause of
action arise.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 271 of 2016

JITENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI BAMBHANIYA & 
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1...

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 18/10/2016

Print Page