A woman who is in a live-in-relationship with a married man cannot file a complaint under the ‘Domestic Violence Act’ against him, the Supreme Court has ruled. Maintaining that the status of such a woman will be that of a “concubine”, the court refused to hold such a relationship to fall within the “nature of marriage” to attract provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
The judgement may raise quite a few eyebrows as the case before the Court was of a 14-year-old live-in relationship where the man who was married with a wife and two children came to stay together with the woman. The relationship, which blossomed in 1992 while the two were working together in an office in Bangalore, went well till in 2007, the woman Indra filed a complaint in court under DV Act alleging domestic violence against her live-in partner VKV Sarma.
In her complaint, the woman accused her partner of exploitation and refusing her social acceptance. On coming together, the woman put in money to start a company with the man. Thrice she became pregnant but the same was aborted. She alleged that the man took money from her and paid to his family.
Throughtout their stay together, she was never exposed to his relatives, friends or social circles. The two did not even have a joint bank account nor was she allowed to suffix his name. All this was considered by the trial court which found the man guilty of domestic violence and directed him on July 21, 2009 to provide her monthly maintenance of Rs 18,000.
The matter was taken to High Court which disagreed with the view throwing the question of law as to the nature of this relationship to the Supreme Court. The bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Ghose said, “Relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while already married to another and maintaining an adulterous relationship that is having voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person who is not one’s husband or wife, cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage.”
It further said, “The status of the appellant (woman) was that of a concubine” as such relationship lacked exclusivity and being monogamous. The court noted that “inequities do exist in such relationships and on breaking down such relationship, the woman invariably is the sufferer” but found itself helpless due to lack of law to regulate such relationships. leaving it for Parliament, judges said it was for legislature to ponder on bringing in proper legislation or carry out amendment so that “women and children, born out of such relationships be protected.” However, such relationships would still not fall within the nature of marriage, the court added.