Woman In Live-In Relationship With Married Man Treated As Concubine: Bombay HC Refuses Domestic Violence Act Protection To Student Against Professor
Court reiterates that knowingly entering a relationship with a married person does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”
The Bombay High Court has refused to extend protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) to a woman (a student) who entered into a long-term live-in relationship with a man (Professor) during the subsistence of his lawful marriage, holding that, the status of the relationship would be that of a concubine or mistress, who cannot be treated as a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under Section 2(f) of the Act.
The High Court acknowledged that certain indicators of a marriage-like relationship, such as joint property ownership, shared finances, and prolonged intimacy were present. However, it emphasised that the decisive factor was the petitioner’s admitted knowledge of the respondent’s subsisting marriage at the inception of the relationship.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande while referring to Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755, categorically observed, “…since the appellant therein was aware that the respondent was a married person, prior to the commencement of their relationship, the status of the relationship would be that of a concubine or mistress, who cannot be treated as a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’. A long standing relationship of concubine though requires some kind of protection, but the D.V. Act does not take care of such contingency and perhaps requires for amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the PWDVA, 2005, which is restrictive and not exhaustive. It is held that there is neither any express statutory protection for such kind of relationship, nor any regulation to regulate the live-in relationships, upon its disruption or termination. Finally it is held that all live-in relationships are not ‘relationships in the nature of marriage’, unless such relationship has an essential characteristic of marriage”.
“The very definition of ‘Domestic relationship’ includes a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’, therefore the protection under the PWDVA, 2005, is not restricted to a relationship through marriage only. Although there are various provisions under various enactments providing remedies to a married woman to claim maintenance against her husband, however, for the first time, the law has recognized right of a women, who is not married to her male counterpart and is in abusive relationship, to seek various protection orders under the provisions of the PWDVA, 2005. This Act aims at providing protection to the victims of domestic violence including women who are in a live-in relationship. A live-in relationship is not a socially accepted phenomena in India as yet. However, with the urbanization and industrialization, the social fabric has undergone a change to a great extent during the past few years. Consequent to the changing society, it was found necessary to provide some protection to the women who are in such kind of relationship, by providing protection and remedies under the PWDVA, 2005”, the bench further observed.
Advocate Narayan G. Rokade appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Sujay H. Gangal and S. S. Kaushik, APP appeared for the respondents.
In the present matter, the petitioner, an engineering student, alleged that she was induced into a relationship by her college professor, who was already married.
The petitioner claimed that the respondent misrepresented his marital status and assured her of divorce, she asserted that they secretly married in the year 2005, cohabited at various places, jointly purchased property, shared financial arrangements, and underwent IVF treatment resulting in the birth of a child.
While the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pune had initially granted maintenance and compensation under the DV Act, however, the Additional Sessions Judge had set aside those reliefs. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India.
The High Court, however, noted that one of the essential conditions laid down in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 that both parties must be legally qualified to enter into marriage, was clearly absent, as the respondent was already married.
Accordingly, the Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s observation that while long-standing relationships of this nature may require social or legal protection, the DV Act, in its present form, does not contemplate or cover such situations. The definition under Section 2(f) was held to be restrictive, and the absence of legislative intent to regulate such relationships was reaffirmed.
Holding that the relationship failed to meet the essential characteristics of a “relationship in the nature of marriage,” the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Sessions Court’s decision denying relief under the DV Act.
Cause Title: X v. Y [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:848]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Narayan G. Rokade, Swapnil S. Kalokhe, Advocates.
Respondents: Sujay H. Gangal, Swaraj M. Savant, S. S. Kaushik, APP, Advocates.