Not all types of live-in relations come under ambit of marriage: HC

In a significant ruling, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held all ‘live-in’ relationships cannot come under the ambit of a ‘domestic relationship’ which is a relationship in the nature of marriage. The HC further held that only those live-in relationships in which a ‘legal marriage’ is possible are qualified to be called a domestic relationship in the nature of marriage. A single-judge bench of Justice Mangesh Patil said an ‘adulterous’ relationship cannot be brought under the ambit of domestic relationship as it would promote illegality. “It is abundantly clear that not all the live-in relationships are covered by the provision of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act which defines domestic relationships in the nature of marriage. It is only those which qualify to be the relationship in the nature of marriage, in which a legal marriage between the two is possible,” Justice Patil said. “The provision enables a woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage to seek various remedies under the DV Act, thus one cannot interpret the provision in a manner which would promote an adulterous relationship which is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code,” Justice Patil added. The bench further said that this law was enacted to cover and protect not only a legally wedded wife but also to bring in its ambit, a woman who has been in a relationship in the nature of marriage. “Thus, the use of word marriage to qualify the relationship is conspicuous and the only interpretation that can be put is that the marriage between the couple must be legally possible,” Justice Patil said. The ruling was pronounced while hearing a revision petition filed by a converted Muslim woman seeking maintenance from her second husband. The woman, who was initially a Jain Hindu married to a man from her caste, had gone on to later marry a married Muslim man. The couple married during the subsistence of their earlier marriages. Having been married as per Muslim rituals, the couple soon parted ways, thus prompting the woman seek maintenance under the DV Act. The bench however dismissed her plea saying, “The relation between her and the man was not in the nature of marriage, she is clearly not entitled to claim any relief under that Act.”