The Bombay High Court held that a long-term intimate partnership marked by repeated cohabitation and child birth amounts to a relationship in the nature of marriage under the DV Act. It refused to quash the case against him.
The Bombay High Court upheld a case against a man filed by his partner, asserting that a long-term intimate relationship characterized by repeated cohabitation and the birth of a child can be considered a relationship in the nature of marriage under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The accused and his family approached the High Court to request the dismissal of ongoing proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Chamorshi, as well as previous orders from 2022 and 2023 that mandated him to provide maintenance for his partner and their minor daughter.
Justice MM Nerlikar, while denying the request to quash the case against the accused, who is facing allegations under the Domestic Violence Act stemming from a complaint by his 22-year-old partner, granted relief to the accused’s parents and wife.
The woman, along with her minor daughter, had filed a complaint in a magisterial court alleging domestic violence based on their prolonged intimate relationship.
She claimed that they had been together, during which she became pregnant, but had an abortion at his urging. After this, she gave birth to a girl child, now eight months old.
Following the man’s refusal to marry her, coupled with his subsequent marriage to another woman in 2022, she filed a First Information Report on May 7, 2022, alleging rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and violations of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The defense counsel argued that casual encounters or short-term relationships should not qualify as domestic relationships and that the complaint was merely a retaliatory action that warranted dismissal.
In contrast, the complainant’s counsel highlighted that the magisterial court had already granted her interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month, along with Rs.2,000 for their child.
She contended that until the complete proceedings are resolved and evidence presented, the man’s petition should not be entertained. She also emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act.
After considering the arguments, the High Court noted that the man’s subsequent marriage could not invalidate the woman’s claims for protection under the Domestic Violence Act at this early stage. Citing Supreme Court rulings, the court declared that the duration of their relationship, the nature of their sexual involvement, and the existence of children are critical factors indicating a marriage-like relationship.
The bench ultimately concluded that the woman’s assertions regarding prolonged cohabitation, a sexual relationship, a coerced abortion, and the consequential birth of a girl child prima facie positioned her case within the scope of “domestic relationship” and a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act.
The court stated,
“Prima facie, it could be gathered that the petitioner and his partner were having a relationship in the nature of marriage, as they were in a relationship for a long time and out of the said relationship, a child was born,”
Also added that “it was not inclined to quash the complaint at this threshold where the fact has emerged that out of the relationship a female child was born.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
