SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Suneet Kumar, J.
Kusum and Anr. — Petitioners
versus
State of U.P. and Ors. — Respondents
Writ - C No. 53503 of 2016
Decided on 9.11.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Sunil Kumar Singh, Hari Shanker, Advocate
For the Respondents: C.S.C.

IMPORTANT POINT
Under law relationship in nature of marriage is recognized and not a simplicitor live-in relationship.

Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 2(f)—Live-in-relationship—Protection order—It is admitted that first petitioner is already married and this fact is also known to second petitioner—As such, relationship is adulterous for which second petitioner can be prosecuted—Under law relationship in nature of marriage is recognized and not a simplicitor live-in relationship—It is admitted and pleaded in writ petition that second petitioner entered into a relationship with first petitioner who is married and her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date—Such a relationship cannot be granted any protection—Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 6 and 7)

       Result:Writ Petition dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of instant writ petition, petitioner is seeking following relief:

“(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding to the respondent authorities shall not interfere in the liberty of the petitioners to life as husband and wife of their living in relationship, it is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to guardian of the petitioners or any causes disturbance to the peaceful living of petitioners or in any way harass or humiliated the concerned respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall provided immediate protection to them.”

2. It is sought to be urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the first petitioner is already married to one Sanjay Kumar solemnized on 30 May 2016, which according to the first petitioner was against her wishes. The petitioners, who were having live in-relationship for the past five years, have eloped and they intend to marry, therefore, seek protection.

3. It is sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioners that though the first petitioner is already married and her marriage subsist in law, however, the petitioners have a right to live in-relationship, therefore, are entitled to protection.

4. In my opinion, the contention is of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived for the reason that it is admitted that the first petitioner is already married and this fact is also known to the second petitioner, as such, the relationship is adulterous for which the second petitioner can be prosecuted. Under law relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’ is recognized and not a simplicitor live-in relationship as held by the Supreme Court in Indra Sharma Vs. V.K.V. Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 48, wherein the court observed as follows. Paragraphs 37, 38, 39 and 53 are reproduced:-

“37. Distinction between the relationship in the nature of marriage and marital relationship has to be noted first. Relationship of marriage continues, notwithstanding the fact that there are differences of opinions, marital unrest etc., even if they are not sharing a shared household, being based on law. But live-in-relationship is purely an arrangement between the parties unlike, a legal marriage. Once a party to a live-in- relationship determines that he/she does not wish to live in such a relationship, that relationship comes to an end. Further, in a relationship in the nature of marriage, the party asserting the existence of the relationship, at any stage or at any point of time, must positively prove the existence of the identifying characteristics of that relationship, since the legislature has used the expression “in the nature of”.

38. Reference to certain situations, in which the relationship between an aggrieved person referred to in Section 2(a) and the respondent referred to in Section 2(q) of the DV Act, would or would not amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage, would be apposite. Following are some of the categories of cases which are only illustrative:

38.1(a). Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult woman and an unmarried adult male: Relationship between an unmarried adult woman and an unmarried adult male who lived or, at any point of time lived together in a shared household, will fall under the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act and in case, there is any domestic violence, the same will fall under Section 3 of the DV Act and the aggrieved person can always seek reliefs provided under Chapter IV of the DV Act.

38.2. (b) Domestic relationship between an unmarried woman and a married adult male: Situations may arise when an unmarried adult women knowingly enters into a relationship with a married adult male. The question is whether such a relationship is a relationship “in the nature of marriage” so as to fall within the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act.

38.3. (c) Domestic relationship between a married adult woman and an unmarried adult male: Situations









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top