Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave and examined whether the live-in relationship qualified as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, making the respondent's non-maintenance "domestic violence" under Section 3, entitling the appellant to reliefs under Section 12. (!) (!) [1000534440011]

Marriage is a basic civil right involving formal agreement, cohabitation as husband and wife, public holding out, consortium omnis vitae (mutual support, fidelity, household maintenance), and legal obligations like inheritance.[1000534440022]

"Relationship in the nature of marriage" requires essential marriage characteristics though not legally recognized; unlike marriage (enduring despite discord), it is a terminable arrangement where the claimant must prove identifying traits.[1000534440034][1000534440035]

The DV Act covers opposite-sex relationships via consanguinity, marriage, relationship in nature of marriage, adoption, or joint family; same-sex excluded as "aggrieved person" is woman.[1000534440036][1000534440037]

Illustrative categories: (a) Unmarried woman-unmarried man qualifies; (b) Unmarried woman knowingly with married man (as here) does not, akin to concubine; (c) married woman-unmarried man differs; (d) unknowing may qualify; (e) same-sex excluded. (!) (!) [1000534440055]

Guiding factors for determination: (1) duration; (2) shared household; (3) pooling resources/financial arrangements; (4) domestic arrangements; (5) sexual relationship for emotional/procreative purposes; (6) children and shared upbringing; (7) public socialization as couple; (8) parties' intention/conduct. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Applied to facts: Appellant knowingly entered adulterous/bigamous relationship with married respondent (opposed by families); no intention for marriage/children (three abortions); no pooling/joint accounts/properties/public holding out/socialization; mere cohabitation insufficient—appellant concubine/mistress, not wife-equivalent; no domestic violence.[1000534440055][1000534440056][1000534440062]

Appellant's interference alienated respondent from wife/children (intentional tort); protections unavailable to avoid injustice to legal family.[1000534440063][1000534440066]

Live-in relationships (especially concubine-type) need legislative protection for vulnerable women/children, but DV Act's restrictive Section 2(f) excludes; other remedies like constructive trust possible.[1000534440056][1000534440058][1000534440061]

Appeal dismissed; High Court affirmed—no domestic relationship/violence.[1000534440064][1000534440067]