An important and interesting question came up before the Supreme
Court of India in Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma Criminal appeal No. 2009/2013 as to
whether a “live-in relationship” 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 (DV
Act and whether the 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. This issue arose out of dispute between a
live-in couple where a lady had sought maintenance from a man after the
relationship came to an end. The Court was concerned about the rights of the
real wife and her children if another woman in live-in relation with the
husband is accorded the status of ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’.
In its landmark judgment pronounced on 26th November 2013, a
bench comprising Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
held in its detailed judgment that “all live-in-relationships are not
relationships in the nature of marriage. The appellant, having been fully aware
of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered
into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage. Appellant’s and the respondent’s relationship
is, therefore, not a “relationship in the nature of marriage” because it has no
inherent or essential characteristic of
a marriage, but a relationship other than “in the nature
of marriage” and the appellant’s
status is lower than the status of a
wife and that relationship would
not fall within
the definition of
“domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act.
If we hold
that the relationship between the
appellant and the respondent is a relationship
in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an
injustice to the
legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or commission
or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship,
would not amount to “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the DV Act”.
Supreme Court traced the history of live-in relationship to
the concept of mistress and concubine in historic times. While observing that Live-in
relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in India,
the Supreme Court left it to the Parliament to amend law for protection of
women in such relationship and children born out of it. The court observed that
various countries have started recognising such relationship. The court said
that a legislation is required as it is the woman who invariably suffer because
of breakdown of such relationship. There is no express statutory provision to
regulate live-in relationships upon termination as these relationships are not
in the nature of marriage and not recognised in law. The Court however said
that maintaining an adulterous relation would not come within the ambit of
live-in relationship which is to be protected by law.
Framing guidelines for determining live-in relations, the bench
said that duration of period of relationship, shared household, pooling of
resources and financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the
responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, socialization in public
and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the criteria to be
considered for determining the nature of relations between parties.
Click below to read the Full Text of Judgment
