De Facto Marriage Entitles Woman To Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act Despite Absence Of Formal Proof Of Marriage: Bombay High Court
Domestic relationship under Section 2(f) covers relationships in the nature of marriage ensuring efficacious remedy for maintenance
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that a woman is entitled to maintenance and protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even if there is no legal proof of a valid marriage, provided a domestic relationship in the nature of marriage is established.
The Court emphasised that the DV Act is a progressive legislation intended to provide immediate relief to aggrieved women irrespective of the formal legal status of their relationship. The Court observed that the definition of a "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act is broad enough to include individuals who have lived together in a shared household at any point in time.
Justice Abhay S. Waghwase considering the material placed before it suggesting cohabitation with respondent husband observed, “…there is material to draw inference that there were relations in the nature of marriage. Petitioner no.1 wife has invoked Section 12 of the DV Act. The object of the said Act is to grant and ensure protection and maintenance to a woman which is its salient feature. Consequently, though there is no legal proof of alleged marriage at Verul, there is other material as stated above including evidence of petitioner’s son from first marriage, her sister and her brother-in-law, who too claimed and endorsed relations between the parties as husband and wife”.
The Bench referred to Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141, which reads, “where a man, who lived with a woman for a long time and even though they may not have undergone legal necessities of valid marriage, should be made liable to pay maintenance, if he deserts her. A man should not be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying advantages of a de facto marriage without following duties and obligations”.
Advocate Bhushan S. Dhawale appeared for the applicant and Advocate S.R. Bodade appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, an application was filed by the wife and her minor son under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging that she performed a temple marriage with the respondent on 16-06-2007 and had a son from the wedlock.
She claimed that after 2011, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was eventually driven out of the house. She further alleged that the husband had suppressed his first marriage, however, the husband contested the claim, denying the marriage and paternity of the child, asserting that the documents produced by the wife were fabricated. He focused his defense on the wife’s previous marriage and the lack of formal divorce documentation from her first husband.
Initially, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Aurangabad, partly allowed the wife’s claim, granting ₹3,000 per month each to the wife and son, both parties appealed this order.
The First Appellate Court, presided over by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Aurangabad, dismissed the husband’s appeal and allowed the wife’s appeal by enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.6,000 per month for each petitioner. Aggrieved by this modification and the underlying finding of a domestic relationship, both parties approached the High Court through Criminal Revision Applications.
In its reasoning, the Court noted that while the wife failed to provide legal proof of the temple marriage, she produced significant documentary evidence, including photographs, government papers carrying both names, and complaints filed with the police.
The Court concluded that since the parties had cohabited and projected themselves as husband and wife, a "relationship in the nature of marriage" existed, triggering the husband's liability for maintenance.
“…on taking into account the object of the above Act, there is no denial that it is a progressive Legislation, enacted with sole intention to protect woman “irrespective” of her relation, which she shares with respondent. It is an enactment for providing immediate remedies to aggrieved woman.”, the Bench observed.
The Court dismissed both the applications, upholding the appellate court's order, however, upon a request from the husband’s counsel to approach the Supreme Court, the Bench extended the interim relief regarding the stay on certain payments for a period of six weeks.
Cause Title: X v. Y [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:6648]
Appearances:
Applicant: Bhushan S. Dhawale, Advocate.
Respondent: S.R. Bodade, Advocate.