Introduction
In our country, women’s
rights is an evolving subject where the parliament and our judiciary are
constantly striving to clarify and provide rights to women in our society
keeping up with modern day practices in the world. This is important for any
nation who strives to become a global superpower/ Vishwa guru one day, where
the society is free from any sort of discrimination on basis of
cast/creed/sex/religion.
It is in the nature of
justice that the person who commits wrong shall be the one who is liable to
make it right for the one on whom such a wrong has been committed. In such
situations no “technical loopholes” in laws shall be able to interfere in
delivering of justice.
In a similar situation posed in the leading case law of Indara Sarma vs V.K.V Sarma, question with regards to applicability of the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 in case of Live-in relationship came before the court. The Hon’ble Supreme court of India was made to look into the question “if a woman in a live-in relationship can call for the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005?”, as there is no formal/ legally valid/ legally acceptable marriage between both parties. The Hon’ble court went through all the issues involved and delivered the judgement which we shall discuss as below:
Background
The appellant, Indra Sarma, and the
respondent, V.K.V. Sarma, were in a live-in relationship from 1992 to 2006. The
respondent was already married and had two children from his marriage with
another woman. The respondent already married, raised the argument that he was
only liable to take care of his legally wedded wife, and that because the
appellant was not legally wedded to the respondent, she could not invoke
provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 for
herself.
The appellant claimed that she cohabited
with the respondent and was dependent on him financially. The relationship
resulted in three pregnancies, all of which were terminated. This, if seen in
isolation in a matter where both parties are married to each other, is in
itself a sufficient ground for initiating proceedings under the DV Act, but
since the appellant and the respondent were not legally wedded to each other
and were rather in a live-in relationship with each other, the court was asked
to evaluate the applicability of the provisions onto the appellant.
The appellant alleged that the respondent did not maintain her, took money from her under false pretences, and subjected her to domestic violence.
Legal Issues Involved
The main point that needed to be evaluated
by the Hon’ble Court was to if a live-in relationship qualifies as a
"relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Or if seen from another angle, whether the failure of the respondent to maintain the appellant constituted "domestic violence" under Section 3 of the DV Act.
Key Findings
Live-In Relationship: The Supreme Court
observed that a live-in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin. The
relationship must resemble a marriage, which includes factors like the duration
of the relationship, shared household, and social acknowledgment.
Relationship in the Nature of Marriage: The
Court referred to its earlier judgment in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, which
laid down criteria to determine whether a live-in relationship qualifies as a
"relationship in the nature of marriage". The criteria include the
duration of the relationship, social acknowledgment, and mutual respect.
Domestic Violence: The Court concluded that the respondent's failure to maintain the appellant, despite being in a live-in relationship that resembled a marriage, amounted to economic abuse under Section 3 of the DV Act.
Decision By The Apex Court
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's
claim, recognizing her right to maintenance under the DV Act. The Court
directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the appellant.
The judgment reinforces the legal recognition and protection of women in live-in relationships that resemble marriage, ensuring their right to maintenance and protection from domestic violence.
Conclusion
This judgment is a
significant step toward recognizing and protecting the rights of women in
live-in relationships, ensuring they receive the same legal protections as
those in traditional marriages. Following are the three main highlights that
can be drawn from this case:
Live-In Relationships in the eyes of law: The
judgment clarifies that live-in relationships that resemble marriage are
entitled to protection under the DV Act. This means that according to the Apex
court any relationship like a live- in Relationship, which resembles a marriage,
wherein the parties are performing all the duties and accepting liabilities
that one does in after a legally acceptable/valid marriage, then irrespective
of the term used to describe the relationship, one can ask for remidies
available to a legally wedded person even in such relationships.
Scope
of Economic Abuse: Failure to maintain a partner in such a relationship
constitutes economic abuse, entitling the partner to relief under the DV Act.
Earlier before this judgement, it was believed that only a partner who is
legally wedded to the other, is legally liable to get maintenance from the
other partner. Hence because of this it was believed that in non- martial
relationships or relationships similar to that of live-in relationships, the parties did not have an
option to claim for maintenance from the other party and thus suffer from
economic abuse without having any remedy available with them against the other.
It was almost considered as a side effect of being in a relationship and not
marrying. This however has been addressed and the notion has now been
completely overturned by the Apex court.
Judicial Precedent: The judgment builds on
the criteria established in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal to assess whether a
live-in relationship qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of
marriage". This judgement is considered as a huge step forward by the
courts of this country in deciding issues of the modern society with logic and
reason rather than outdated and stagnant laws. This judgement also provides an
insight as to how the courts of this
country are actively trying and succeeding in providing old laws with a new
makeover to interpret accordingly while staying true to the challenges posed by
the modern society.
Sources/ References :
___________________________________________________________________
Related Blogs:
Chapter XII (Sec 168-172) BNSS: How Police Measures Prevent Crime Before It Happens
From Maintenance Orders to It's Enforcement: A Guide to Sections 144-147 BNSS
1.
Conditions Apply: What You Need to Know About Anticipatory Bail
1.
Perspective Dive: Is There Need To Further Change Laws To Ensure Women Safety In Our Country?
1.
BNSS Medical Examination: Ensuring Justice for Accused and Victims
___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer:
This Article/essay provides general information and does not constitute legal
advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for specific cases.
Tip: If
you find this Article to be of any relevance, please feel free to give your
feedback to the author via commenting below. Consider following my blog. For
any query or suggestions, you can email the author at support@legalprobe.in
___________________________________________________________________
0 Comments