Mumbai: In a judgment that firmly reinforces the statutory boundaries of domestic relationships under Indian law, the Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman who knowingly enters into a relationship with a married man is not entitled to protection or monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV A), 2005. The court held that such a relationship does not qualify as one “in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the Act, reiterating that legal capacity to marry is a non-negotiable prerequisite for invoking the statute’s beneficial provisions. The ruling was delivered by Justice Manjusha Deshpande while dismissing a writ petition filed by a woman engineer who sought maintenance and compensation arising out of a long-term relationship with her former college professor.
Factual Matrix: A Long Relationship, a Legal Barrier
According to the petitioner, the relationship began in 2001, when she was a student and the respondent was her professor. She claimed that in 2005, the parties underwent a ceremonial “marriage,” despite the fact that the respondent’s first marriage continued to subsist legally.
The petitioner asserted that the relationship bore all the hallmarks of a marital union. She claimed that the parties cohabited over several years, jointly acquired movable and immovable assets, and underwent IVF treatment, which led to the birth of a child in 2008. On this basis, she approached the magistrate court seeking maintenance, compensation, and protection under the DV Act.
The respondent, however, categorically denied these claims. He characterised the relationship as an extra-marital affair, disputed the existence of a shared household, and denied that the parties ever projected themselves publicly as husband and wife.While the magistrate court accepted the petitioner’s version and awarded her ₹28,000 per month as maintenance along with ₹5 lakh in compensation, the Pune Sessions Court reversed this finding, holding that the relationship did not meet the statutory threshold of a “domestic relationship” under the Act. This reversal led to the writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
The Legal Question Before the Court
At the heart of the dispute lay a narrow but consequential question:
Can a woman who knowingly enters into a relationship with a married man claim protection under the Domestic Violence Act on the ground that the relationship was “in the nature of marriage”?
The answer, according to the High Court, was a clear no.
Interpreting Section 2(f): What Counts as a “Domestic Relationship”?
The DV Act extends protection beyond legally wedded wives to women in relationships “in the nature of marriage.” However, the court emphasized that this phrase is not open-ended and cannot be interpreted to include every emotionally intimate or financially interdependent relationship. Justice Deshpande reiterated three core requirements that must be satisfied:
1. Legal Capacity to Marry
The court reaffirmed that both parties must be legally eligible to marry each other. A subsisting marriage creates an absolute legal bar. Since the respondent was already married, and that marriage had not been dissolved, the relationship lacked legal capacity from its inception. The court stressed that legal impossibility cannot be cured by emotional commitment or duration.
2. Knowledge of the Existing Marriage
A critical factor in the court’s reasoning was the petitioner’s admitted knowledge of the respondent’s existing marriage. The court held that when a woman enters such a relationship with full awareness of this fact, she cannot later seek the law’s protection by claiming the relationship was equivalent to marriage. This distinction is crucial. Courts have, in limited circumstances, extended protection where a woman was deceived into believing the man was unmarried. That was not the case here.
3. Absence of Public Projection
The High Court found insufficient evidence to establish that the parties held themselves out to society as husband and wife. Social recognition, shared identity, and public acknowledgment are key indicators of a marriage-like relationship. Their absence weakened the petitioner’s claim.
Supreme Court Jurisprudence: A Settled Legal Position
The judgment is firmly anchored in Supreme Court precedent, particularly two landmark decisions that continue to define the contours of live-in relationships under Indian law.
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)
In Velusamy, the Supreme Court clarified that not all live-in relationships qualify for protection under the DV Act. The Court laid down essential conditions, including:
Legal eligibility to marry, Voluntary cohabitation for a significant period, Social recognition as a couple and A relationship resembling marriage in substance, not merely in form The Bombay High Court applied these principles to conclude that legal eligibility is foundational, not optional.
Indra Sarma v. V .K.V . Sarma (2013)
In Indra Sarma, the Supreme Court dealt squarely with relationships involving married men. It held that a woman who knowingly enters such a relationship cannot claim the status of a “domestic relationship” under the DV Act.The Court warned that extending protection in such cases would amount to legitimising bigamous relationships and would unfairly prejudice the rights of the legally wedded wife. Justice Deshpande relied heavily on this reasoning, noting that the present case fell squarely within the exclusion carved out in Indra Sarma.
Duration Is Not Destiny: The Court’s Core Holding
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is its rejection of longevity as a determinative factor. The court made it clear that Long duration, Emotional dependence, Financial intermingling, Shared parenting while socially and personally significant, cannot override a fundamental lack of legal capacity. The High Court held that allowing such factors to prevail would amount to judicial legislation, expanding the scope of the DV Act beyond what Parliament intended.
The Balancing Act: Welfare Law vs. Legal Structure
The DV Act is undeniably a social welfare legislation, meant to protect women from abuse and economic vulnerability. However, the court cautioned that welfare statutes cannot be interpreted in a manner that destabilises settled legal institutions, particularly marriage. By denying relief in this case, the court sought to Prevent circumvention of bigamy laws, Protect the legal and financial rights of the lawfully wedded spouse, Preserve the distinction between legally recognisable relationships and relationships that exist outside the statutory framework
Children Are Not Penalised: An Important Clarification
While denying relief to the petitioner as a partner, the court’s ruling does not affect the rights of the child born from the relationship. Indian law draws a sharp distinction between the status of the relationship and the rights of children arising from it. Through a combination of statutory provisions and judicial interpretation that Children born from void or voidable marriages are deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, they have an absolute right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, regardless of legitimacy Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has expanded their inheritance rights, allowing them to inherit their parent’s share in ancestral property through the doctrine of notional partition and the guiding principle remains that the conduct of the parents cannot be used to disadvantage the child.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling is significant for several reasons like it reasserts legal capacity as the cornerstone of DV Act protection, It draws a firm doctrinal boundary between live-in relationships and adulterous relationships, It prevents dilution of a statute meant to protect women in legally vulnerable domestic arrangements, It provides clarity and predictability in an area often marked by moral and emotional complexity and At the same time, it underscores a continuing tension in Indian family law: the gap between social realities and legal recognition.
The Larger Question: A Legislative Crossroads
The judgment concludes with an implicit invitation to Parliament. If society believes that women in such relationships deserve statutory protection, the court observed, the remedy lies in legislative reform, not judicial expansion. Until then, the law remains clear: legal capacity, not longevity, determines entitlement under the Domestic Violence Act.
ALSO READ | Sedition or Speech? How Protest Words Became Criminal Evidence.
