By Chiranjeev Singh
---
Citation: (2013) 15 SCC 755
Act: Domestic
Violence Act 2005
Principle: A
live-in relationship is a relationship in the nature of marriage with respect
to the Domestic Violence Act
This case is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court on the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 [DV Act] to live-in relationships. While holding that the woman in the live-in relationship can seek the protection of the DV Act, the Court laid down certain guidelines on determining what a live-in relationship for the purpose of the Statute is.
In the present case, a married man [the Respondent] and an unmarried woman [the Appellant] were living in a shared household since 1992, with the Appellant being aware of the Respondent’s marital status. In 2007, the Respondent under pressure from his family left the Appellant. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act before a Magistrate alleging that she had been the victim of domestic violence and was left without maintenance. She sought relief under various Section of the DV Act. Before going to the merits of the case regarding domestic violence, the Magistrate had to rule whether such a relationship is protected under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. On this point of law, while the Magistrate and the Sessions judge ruled in favour of the Appellant, the High Court ruled in favour of the Respondent, and the dispute came before the Supreme Court. The impugned Section reads as follows :
“Domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”
Therefore, the core issue before the Supreme Court was
whether the above relationship was a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’
as per the DV Act.
The Court to decide what a ‘relationship in the nature
of marriage’ is, has to find what the characteristics of a marriage are. In
this regard, the Court observes that in a marriage, the parties: agree to be
married, live together as a husband and wife, and hold out to the public that
they are married. It logically flows from this that a ‘relationship in the
nature of marriage’ must have some inherent and essential characteristics of a
marriage, even though it may not be legally binding.
The Court, to further substantiate its observation, refers
to some possible relationships which could come under the protection of the DV
Act. While a domestic relationship between an unmarried man and an unmarried
woman would come under Section 2(f), a domestic relationship between same-sex
partners would not be covered as the same is outside the scope of the Act.
The Court then analysing legislations of various
countries, formulates the following guidelines, which are non-exhaustive, to
test whether any given relationship is a ‘relationship in the nature of
marriage’ –
a.
Duration of period of
relationship –
A reasonable time must
have elapsed, and this will be determined in a case to case basis.
b.
Shared Household –
This follows from the DV
Act
c.
Pooling of Resources and
Financial Arrangements –
Supporting each other
financially to have a long-standing relationship
d.
Domestic Arrangements –
Entrusting the
responsibility on the woman to run the home
e.
Sexual Relations –
This refers to sexual
relations not just for pleasure but for emotional support and procreation of
children
f.
Children –
This is a powerful
indicator of a relationship like a marriage
g.
Socialisation in Public –
Holding out to the public
as if they are a married couple
h.
Intention and Conduct of
Parties –
Common intention of both the parties to what
their relationship is and the respective responsibilities it entails
Keeping in view the above guidelines and the specific
facts of the case, the Court held that the present relationship between a
married man and an unmarried woman was a bigamous one and not a relationship in
the nature of marriage because, among other reasons, the parties by their
conduct did not project themselves as a married couple. Additionally, the
Appellant knew that the Respondent is a married person but still interfered in
their marriage, and a relationship borne out of such interference could not be
a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Apart from the disposition, the Supreme Court in this
judgement has made an important observation that a live-in relationship between
an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, is a relationship in the nature of
marriage. Therefore, the woman is protected under the DV Act. Further, the
Court has laid down guidelines to determine whether such a relationship is
present or not.
---
Chiranjeev Singh is a 2nd year law student at National Law University Delhi. He loves to read about various topics of law, polity and economics. His inclination is towards exploring the various issues revolving around criminal justice administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment