While hearing a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Justice S. B. SHUKRE of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court held that, under no circumstances, a lover is bound to pay maintenance to his lover who is a married women, because such relationship does not constitute a domestic relationship and therefore, the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot be applied against the lover of the married woman.
The term domestic relationship is defined with referring to the apex courts view in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, ((2014 (1) ABR 615))where Supreme Court clarified the issue as to whether or not a concubine or a mistress, who is living together with a man for a considerably long period of time, would be entitled to derive benefits of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by contending that she is in “domestic relationship” with that man.
Court further observed that, by virtue of Section 2 (f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 it is clear that a woman, who is married, can’t enter into another domestic relationship. Court in this regard, further referred the judgement in Durgesh Yuvraj Rahangdale v. Rajni Krushnadatta Ukey, ((2014(1) ABR (Cri) 339))where it was held by the Supreme Court 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. It was further held by the apex court that, in order to take advantage of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is necessary for the petitioner as well as the accused to live in such a way that they are treated by the society at large as husband and wife and not only that they should also otherwise be qualified to enter into a legal marriage, with both of them being of legal age to marry, both of them being unmarried at the time when they enter into a relationship which is akin to a marriage and so on.
Read Full Judgment of Narayan Jangluji Thool v. Mala (decided on 27-01-2015, Bombay HC) Search for Criminal Writ Petition No: 773/2014 (Nagpur Bench)