JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at hands of respondents No.4 to 9.

2. The factual matrix of the present case unfolds as under:-

That petitioner No.1 aged 30 years and petitioner No.2 aged 32 years are living together despite of the fact that petitioner No.1 is already married and is having two children out of the wedlock. Both the petitioners developed liking for each other and wants to live in live-in-relationship but respondents are extending threats to their life and liberty.

3. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this court is of the view that India is recognized for its democratic administration and domestic framework. People, on the whole, have a strong attachment to their houses, perceiving that a human has a marriage is the most important cognitive process. In our diverse country, marriage as social tie is one the essential of Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community. India is a country with a diverse set of principles traditions, rituals, and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources. Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted Modern lifestyle, namely, the live- in relationship.

4. With regard to the status of live-in-relationship with an existing marriage, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, has held that all live-in-relationships could not be considered synonyms to the relationships in the 'nature of marriage'. A live-in-relationship between a married man and a woman or a married woman with a man is not akin to marriage, as it amounts to adultery and bigamy, which is unlawful. Therefore, such woman are not entitled to any protection under the DV Act. Furthermore, certain guidelines were framed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment to consider the live-in-relationships in the nature of marriage wherein the following observations were made:-

'We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will definitely give some insight to such relationships.

56.1 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 period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

56.2 Shared household- The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.

56.3 Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.

56.4 Domestic Arrangements-Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

56.5 Sexual Relationship- Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children,