Indra Sarma v V.K.V. Sarma

Facts

• The appellant, aware that the respondent was already married, entered into a long-term live-in relationship with him. After the relationship broke down, she sought relief under the Domestic Violence Act, claiming the relationship was "in the nature of marriage" and entitled her to maintenance and protection. The respondent contended no such relationship existed in law, given his subsisting marriage.

Issue

1. Whether a live-in relationship, entered into with a person already validly married to another, can be treated as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" attracting protection under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Held

• The Court held that a relationship with a man who is already married to someone else generally does not qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage, because such a relationship cannot mature into a valid marriage. The Court laid down guiding criteria to assess whether a live-in relationship is "in the nature of marriage," including: duration of relationship, shared household, pooling of resources, sexual relationship, domestic arrangements, socialisation in public, and intention/conduct of the parties. On the facts, since the appellant knew of the subsisting marriage, the relationship did not qualify, and the claim under the Act failed. The Court nonetheless recommended legislative consideration for protecting women in such relationships.

Ratio Decidendi

A "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Domestic Violence Act requires the relationship to be one capable of maturing into a marriage; a relationship with an already-married person, entered into with knowledge of that fact, does not meet this test, though courts must examine the totality of circumstances using the guiding factors laid down.