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

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.

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.

Print Page

Whether woman having live-in-relationship with married man is entitled to get interim maintenance?

The question that needs to be determined herein is: whether the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on account of live in relationship, not being a wife. There is no valid marriage between the parties as on the date the petition was preferred. There can be no dispute about the fact that the children being born out of this relationship would be entitled to receive maintenance. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere regarding the quantum of interim maintenance that has been awarded by the Family Court to the children.

16. As regards maintenance that has been awarded to respondent No. 1, the Family Court has to determine whether or not the relationship was akin to a marriage or not. It has been argued before this Court that respondent No. 1 herein was aware of the fact that the petitioner was a married man and hence was legally not competent to enter into a matrimony, as has been alleged by the respondent herein. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that twins were born out of this relationship which would be of some indication that the couple had gone for this relationship to give it some permanence and that can entitle respondent No. 1 to claim interim maintenance, based on the evidence added. However, since all these matters are matter of evidence and the Family Court is seized of it, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the final orders to be passed, while reducing the amount of maintenance that has been awarded to respondent No. 1 to sum of Rs. 10,000, so that she is in a position to maintain herself.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Criminal Revision No. (F) 166 of 2015 (O&M)

Decided On: 23.11.2016

 Ajay Bhardwaj

Vs.

Jyotsna and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jaishree Thakur, J.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI)Journal 43

Print Page

Whether children of woman maintaining relation with married man are entitled to get maintenance under domestic violence Act?

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. Learned Magistrate should have rejected her prayer. The appeal should have been dismissed by the appellate court. If respondent no.2 was not entitled for any relief under the Act, it follows that her children are also not entitled for the relief under the said Act. It is another thing that the children may be entitled for relief under section 125 of Code 
of Criminal Procedure.

Bombay High Court

Deepak @ Gajanan Ramrao ... vs The State Of maharashtra And Anr on 1 July, 2015

Bench: M.L. Tahaliyani

Citation; 2015 CRLJ4833 Bom

Print Page

Woman maintaining relation with married man whether "aggrieved person" within meaning of Domestic violence Act

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. Learned Magistrate should have rejected her prayer. The appeal should have been dismissed by the appellate court. If respondent no.2 was not entitled for any relief under the Act, it follows that her children are also not entitled for the relief under the said Act. It is another thing that the children may be entitled for relief under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Bombay High Court

Deepak @ Gajanan Ramrao ... vs The State Ofmaharashtra And Anr on 1 July, 2015

Bench: M.L. Tahaliyani

Citation; 2015 CRLJ4833 Bom

Print Page

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. Learned Magistrate should have
rejected her prayer. The appeal should have been dismissed by the
appellate court. If respondent no.2 was not entitled for any relief under the
Act, it follows that her children are also not entitled for the relief under the
said Act. It is another thing that the children may be entitled for relief under
section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
 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, 2015CriLJ4833, 2015(4)JCC2551, 2015(3)RCR(Civil)1037, 2015(3)RCR(Criminal)1002

Print Page