The Bombay High Court has recently held that a married woman who has been in a live-in relationship with a man who is not her husband is entitled to receive maintenance from him as per the special anti-domestic violence law. According to a report in The Times of India, Justice Bharati Dangre had struck down a sessions court that rejected a woman’s plea application, asking for maintenance from a married man.

The woman in question was married to someone else but was living in with another man for over 15 years. She claimed that in the years they were together, the two shared household expenses. Her own children from her marriage to another man used to address him as their father.

The woman had mentioned in her plea that the man she married 20 years ago abandoned her and her children. She then met her future domestic partner, a vegetable trader in 1994 and started living with him. The two had separated, following a dispute and the woman had lodged a complaint in 2012 under the Domestic Violence Act, seeking maintenance. The magistrate court supported her appeal but the sessions court overturned it, following which she led an appeal in the high court.

What Constitutes the Domestic Violence Act?

Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 includes protection for domestic partners against threats to their health, safety, life, etc. And protects them against mental, physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. Justice Dangre cited economic abuse in this case as the reason to invoke the act.

What Constitutes a Live-In Relationship?

Live-in relationships have been traditionally frowned upon in India since the country’s culture and society have always upheld the prerequisite of marriage for any couple wanting to live together. But laws in the country have been welcoming of the new social institution, giving it the much-needed dignity.

According to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Supreme Court of the country presumes wedlock or a marriage-like relationship between the couples if they lived together for a long time as husband and wife and if there are oral and other forms of reliable evidence that prove their relationship. The Right to Maintenance in a live in relationship is also decided by the court according to the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.

For the relationship to be qualified as a live in, the apex court has its own set of tests.

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.

Following these rules, the Bombay High Court has found the complainant’s plea for maintenance valid and has held that it is well within her rights to seek maintenance from her domestic partner of 15 years. Justice Dangre acknowledged that the two shared a domestic relationship akin to that of married couples. She held that the couple also had economic exchange between them and were jointly operating a business together, vending vegetables. The woman herself had categorically stated that the man had helped raise her children and shared the household expenses. The woman said that she shared the money she received for her daughter’s wedding expenses with the man and now she had no money for herself.

Although the Domestic Violence Act enacted in 2005 was meant for protecting women from abuse, it can be invoked in this case since the term ‘abuse’ can also mean physical and economical abuse. The Justice is quoted as saying: “Taking into consideration the purpose of the enactment, the provisions contained in the enactment are to be liberally construed to achieve the object of ensuring the welfare of a woman for whom the Act is intended to grant certain protection in certain situations.”

The man’s lawyers have opposed the plea saying that merely living together under a house without being married is not say anything about the nature of their relationship. But the court rejected the lawyers’ point in favour of the woman, saying that they had lived together for a long time and was known as a married couple to everyone around them. So their relationship was like that of a married couple.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Apr 27, 2018 11:40 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).