V. Nath, J. – Heard Mr. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner questioning the rejection of the petition for grant of injunction by the learned court below where the prayer was made to restrain the defendants other than the defendant no. 1 from performing the marriage of the defendant no. 1.

3. The factual expose’ are that the petitioner as plaintiff filed Matrimonial Case No. 179 of 2016 before the Family Court, Patna seeking the relief for declaration that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 got valid married with each other as a result of freedom of their choices and for further declaration that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 were husband and wife. The prayer was also made for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. From the averments made in the plaint (Annexure-1), it is manifest that according to the petitioner, the opposite party no. 1 came in his contact while they were student in the year 2012 and had developed carnal relationship with each other. It has been averred that the said relationship continued with intervals at different places where the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 went for their further study. On the basis of these averments, the claim has been made by the petitioner that both have acquired the status of husband and wife and are entitled to get declaration accordingly and the relief for restitution of conjugal rights against the parents of the opposite party who according to the petitioner have restrained the opposite party no. 1 from free movement including her continuing relationship with the petitioner.

5. The petition for injunction was filed by the petitioner when he became aware that the parents of the opposite party no. 1 including her brothers were going to perform the marriage of the opposite party no. 1 on 22.04.2016. The learned court below has rejected the said petition and refused to grant injunction.

6. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his astute manner, has tried to persuade this Court to hold that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 have been in live-in relationship and therefore they have acquired the status of husband and wife. Elaborating the background facts in detail, it has been propounded that the presumption of relationship between two adult male and female as husband and wife is necessarily to be raised when they are living together for long as such they are entitled to get the appropriate relief when they are restrained in living together onwards as husband and wife. Learned counsel has also relied upon several decisions of different High Courts including the decision in the case of Aysha vs. Ozir Hassan in Cr. R. C. No. 674 of 2007 of the Madras High Court as well as the decision dated 08.04.2015 of the Apex Court in the case of Dhannulal vs. Ganeshram in Civil Appeal No. 3410 of 2007 with Civil Appeal No. 3411 of 2007 in support of his submissions.

7. After considering the submission and perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the suit has been filed by the petitioner for getting the declaration of valid marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 and for restitution of conjugal rights. From the perusal of the plaint (Annexure-1), however, it does not appear that the basic and foundational facts in order to raise the presumption even of live-in relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 have been averred. The Apex Court in the case of Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma 2013 (15) SCC 755 after elaborately considering the issue of live-in relationship has laid down broad guidelines for testing under what circumstances a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage can be said to be in existence. Those guidelines are as follows: –

1. Duration of period of relationship: Section 2 (f) of the DV Act has used the expression “at any point of time”, which means a reasonable