As we know a woman suffering domestic violence at the hands of her husband or her in-laws, can seek reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act by filing an application under Section 12 of the Act. A question arises whether the DV Act provides any reliefs to the women who suffer violence in live-in relationships? Also, a woman may suffer domestic violence not just as a wife or as a daughter-in-law but also in capacity of other relations like mother, daughter, sister, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, grandmother, etc. So, whether the Act provides any remedy to such women?

Let us understand who can seek reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act?

Domestic Violence under Section 3 of the Act:

Section 3 of the Act, provides definition of Domestic Violence-

A woman is said to be a victim of domestic violence if she is subjected to acts of violence of any kind occurring within the family. Domestic violence could include any physical abuse causing harm or injury endangering life, health, and well-being both mental and physical. Any act causing verbal and emotional abuses which results in humiliating and insulting the woman. Any act causing sexual abuse which humiliates and violates the dignity of a woman. Any kind of harassment, injury, or harm caused to a woman to fulfil any unlawful demands of dowry. Anything causing harm and injury, both mentally and physically, and causing threats to the woman or persons related to her. The expression ‘domestic violence’ has a vast domain and covers all sort of physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuses, and also financial or economic abuse which is depriving a woman of financial resources which she is otherwise entitled to under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or the aggrieved person requires out of necessity.

When Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence, it is clear that such violence is gender neutral. It is also clear that physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse can all be by women against other women. Even sexual abuse may, in a given circumstance, be by one woman on another. Section 3, therefore, in tune with the general object of the Act, seeks to outlaw domestic violence of any kind against a woman, and is gender neutral.(1)

Who is an ‘aggrieved woman’?

A woman who has been subjected to domestic violence is an aggrieved person and can seek reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, we need to understand this more in detail in context of the relevant definitions under the DV Act. The Act defines several terms like “Aggrieved Person”, “Domestic Relationship”, and “Shared Household”.

Let us first see the definition of “Aggrieved Person” under the Act.

An “Aggrieved Person” as defined under Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, means any woman who is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the Respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the Respondent.

The definition clearly states that the aggrieved person is a woman who is or has been in domestic relationship with the Respondent who has subjected her with acts of domestic violence. It means the aggrieved woman must be having a domestic relation with the Respondent. To further understand this definition, let us see the definition of the expression “Domestic Relationship” under the DV Act which is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.

The expression “Domestic Relationship” is defined under Sec 2 clause (f) of the Act -

“Domestic Relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity (by blood), marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

From the definitions of the “Aggrieved Person” and “Domestic Relationship” it is apparent enough that the main ingredient to attract the provisions of the DV Act is to have domestic relationship and such a relationship is between two persons who live or have lived together at any point of time in a shared household. It includes relationship of marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, related by way of blood, adoption or family members living as joint family.

The definition of “Domestic Relationship” contained in Section 2(f) is a very wide one. It is a relationship between persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related in anyone or four ways – blood, marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or family members of a joint family. A reading of these definitions makes it clear that domestic relationships involve persons belonging to both sexes and includes persons related by blood or marriage. This necessarily brings within such domestic relationships a male as well as a female-in-laws quite apart from male and female members of a family related by blood.(2)

Under Section 2 (s) of the Act, “Shared Household” means a household where the aggrieved person lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the Respondent. It 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. It also 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.

Thus, for attracting the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the aggrieved person and the Respondent must be in a domestic relationship who live or have lived together in a shared household.

These definitions show that the legislature intended to protect not just a wife or daughter-in-law but also women related by nature of marriage, blood, adoption or members of a joint family.

Whether women having live-in relationships can seek reliefs under DV Act?

As per the definition of the “Domestic Relationship”, it is a relationship between the aggrieved woman and the Respondent, who live or have lived together in shared household and they must be related to each other either by (i) blood, (ii) marriage, (iii) nature of marriage, (iv) related on account of adoption or (v) being related as family members within a joint family.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down law in the case of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal - AIR 2011 SC 479, holding that all live-in-relationships do not amount to relationships in the nature of marriage so as to get the benefit of the Act, 2005.

In the instant case, the Apex Court, in their opinion held that a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfil the requirements 

  1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses. 
  2. They must be of legal age to marry. 
  3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. 
  4. They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time and in addition the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a ‘one-night stand’ would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’.

In my opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit, the conditions mentioned above must be satisfied, and this must be proved by cogent evidence. If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/ or as a servant it would not, in my opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.(3)

The expression “relationship in nature of marriage” falls within the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act. It means a relationship which has some inherent or essential characteristics of a marriage though not a marriage legally recognised, and, hence, a comparison of both will have to be resorted, to determine whether the relationship in a given case constitutes the characteristics of a regular marriage.(4)

The Supreme court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755; laid few guidelines to test whether a particular relationship would fall under the expression “relationship in nature of marriage” since the expression has not been defined under the act. Few factors which were considered to be important by the Apex Court to constitute such a relationship includes:

  1. duration of the period of relationship.
  2. shared household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived with the Respondent in domestic relationship.
  3. financial arrangements made to support each other or either of them by sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, making long term investments in business and shares in separate and joint names, so as to have long standing relationship,
  4. Entrusting household or domestic responsibility on the woman to run the house.
  5. Sexual Relationship in marriage is not just for sexual pleasure but for emotional support, companionship, care and affection and for procreation of children.
  6. Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.
  7. Socialising in public as husband and wife is also indication of relationship in nature of marriage
  8. intention and conduct of the parties as to what their relationship is to be, their respective roles and responsibilities determine the nature of their relationship.

In the instant case, it was held by the Supreme Court that 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. All live-in- relationships are not relationships 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.

The Apex Court observed that if they hold such relationship between the appellant and the respondent as a relationship in the nature of a marriage, there would be injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. It was categorically held that, 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.

Conclusion:

The Legislation intended to protect women as an aggrieved person having domestic relationship of not just legally wedded wife but also relationships including those who live or have lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption or any family members living together as a joint family.

Though the Act recognises relationships in the nature of marriage. All live-in relationships are not relationships in nature of marriage. A woman knowingly entering into live-in relationship with married man cannot be said to having a relationship in nature of marriage. The Supreme Court has expressed its view of bringing remedial measures by the Parliament through proper legislation for protecting such women in distress and any children born out of such relationship.

Since, under the Act, an aggrieved person is only a woman, it does not recognize the relationship of same sex (gay or lesbian) and, hence, any act, omission, commission or conduct of any of the parties, would not amount to domestic violence, and hence would not entitle any relief under the DV Act.

____________________________

Also Read:

Domestic Violence And remedies.

Discus