Bombay HC Bars DV Relief in Live-In Affairs

BOMBAY HC RULES ON DV ACT RELIEF IN NON-MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS

Why in the News?

  • Judicial ruling: The Bombay High Court held that a woman knowingly in a relationship with a married man cannot seek relief under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
  • Legal clarity: The court ruled such a relationship lacks legal sanctity and is not a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
  • Case impact: The judgment reiterates limits of protection under the DV Act.

Bombay HC Bars DV Relief in Live-In Affairs

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND REASONING

  • Knowledge factor: Relief denied as the woman knew the man was already married.
  • Nature of relationship: Joint property ownership or brief cohabitation does not qualify as marriage-like.
  • Adverse impact: Granting relief would harm the legally wedded wife and children.
  • Public projection: Woman failed to prove she was held out as wife in public.
  • Domestic relationship: Court found no valid domestic relationship under the Act.

CASE BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS

  • Allegations: Woman claimed a long-term relationship with her married professor, including IVF treatment and a child.
  • Lower court order: A magistrate court had earlier awarded maintenance and compensation.
  • Sessions court view: The Pune sessions court later set aside the magistrate’s order.
  • High Court verdict: Upheld that the relationship lacks legal recognition.
  • Final outcome: Petition seeking DV Act relief was dismissed.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

●     Objective: Protect women from domestic abuse in household relationships.

●     Coverage: Applies to marriage and relationships in the nature of marriage.

●     Judicial test: Requires cohabitation, exclusivity, and social recognition.

●     Limitations: Does not extend to relationships knowingly adulterous.

●     Significance: Balances women’s protection with legal family rights.