Home > Recent Judgements > Live-In Relationships Recognized As Domestic Relationships
Jan 17, 2025
INTRODUCTION
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Anamika Chandel vs. Dr. Naresh Chandel, established a significant legal precedent, “Living Together in a Relationship ‘In the nature of Marriage’ Constitutes a Domestic Relationship Under the Domestic Violence Act (“DV”) Act, 2005”. The court held that cohabitation within a shared household, even without formal marriage, constitutes a “domestic relationship” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provided the relationship is of a marital nature.
UNDERSTANDING SECTION
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, empowers Magistrates to issue protection orders to safeguard women from domestic violence. These orders can include residence orders to ensure the woman’s safe stay in the shared home, protection orders to prevent further violence, monetary relief for the woman and her children, custody orders, and directions to the police to prevent violence.
Section 2(f) of the Act defines “domestic relationship” broadly, extending beyond traditional familial bonds. It encompasses individuals who cohabitate or have previously cohabited, irrespective of whether they are legally married, related by blood, adopted, or simply reside together as a family unit. Notably, the Act recognizes “relationships in the nature of marriage,” explicitly acknowledging live-in partnerships and affording legal protection to women within these arrangements.
BACKGROUND
This case involves a domestic violence complaint filed by a woman against her husband. The woman claimed they were married on April 22, 2006, and subsequently endured seven years of domestic abuse. The husband contested the marriage, presenting evidence including a Friendship Agreement, a marriage certificate dated April 3, 2006, a divorce decree, and a letter from the woman to the police acknowledging a prior marriage to his brother. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the husband’s challenge to the complaint’s maintainability. However, on appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge reversed the Magistrate’s decision and dismissed the woman’s complaint.
RULING
The Court clarified that “domestic relationship” under the Domestic Violence Act encompasses not only legally recognized marriages but also relationships that, while not formally married, exhibit the characteristics of a marital union, particularly when parties share a household. The Court noted that the woman’s complaint explicitly stated a marriage on April 22, 2006, followed by seven years of cohabitation and alleged domestic violence. The Court emphasized that at the initial stage of evaluating maintainability, the court must assess the allegations and factual content presented by the complainant without prematurely accepting the respondent’s evidence as conclusive truth.
The Court further observed that even if the parties did not have a legally recognized marriage, their seven-year cohabitation within a shared household would likely constitute a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Act, thereby establishing a domestic relationship. The Court concluded that the woman’s allegations of domestic violence within this context warranted further investigation. Consequently, the Court overturned the previous order and reinstated the woman’s complaint for further proceedings.
OBSERVATION
The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case marks a significant step forward in recognizing and protecting women in diverse relationship contexts. By expanding the definition of “domestic relationship” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to include relationships in marriage, the court has affirmed the Act’s commitment to safeguarding women from domestic violence, regardless of their marital status. This landmark ruling has far-reaching implications, ensuring that women who may not be formally married but share a household and intimate relationship with their partners are entitled to the protections afforded by the Act. It underscores the evolving understanding of family structures and the need for legal frameworks to adapt to contemporary realities.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
