Indra Sharma Vs. VKV Sharma (Domestic Violence)

In above noted matter bearing Criminal Appeal No. 2009 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4895 of 2012, hon’ble bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Mr. K. S. Radhakrishanan J. and Mr. Pinaki Chandra Ghosh J., while dismissing appeal, upheld decision of High Court of Karnataka wherein the same relied on D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 and denied maintenance to a woman claiming maintenance under the DV Act from a married male with whom she was in live-in relation knowing the fact of his marriage.   

  

The question of law to be decided by hon’ble court was whether a live-in relationship of a woman with a married man knowing his marital status would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and thereby disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act?

In order to arrive at any conclusion, hon’ble court looked into various aspects of marital relation and live in relation and also gone through various rulings from courts of different counties. Thereafter, it promulgated some factors to look into 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 relationship:

• 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.
• Shared household - The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and it means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. 
• 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. 
•  Domestic Arrangements - Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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.

Finally the question of law to be decided was answered as a woman having been fully aware of the fact that the person with whom she is having live-in relation is a married person, cannot have entered into a “live-in relationship in the nature of marriage” specially where parties do not project or conduct themselves to be husband and wife before friends, relatives and society and hence she cannot claim maintenance under DV Act.