Parties To A 'Relationship In The Nature Of Marriage' Must Be Unmarried: Kerala HC Sets Aside Order Granting Relief Under Domestic Violence Act

The Court clarified the definition of a ‘domestic relationship’ in Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the DV Act) observing that the parties must be “qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.”

In this case, the High Court had to determine whether, on account of the marriage ceremony between the parties and subsequent cohabitation for a considerable period, a domestic relationship under the definition in Section 2(f) of the DV Act would exist.

A Single Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed, “Therefore, the parties to the relationship in the nature of marriage must be persons qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. Without considering that aspect of the matter, the courts below took the view that the parameters enlisted by the Apex court in Indra Sarma (supra) were satisfied in the case and therefore there was a domestic relationship. The said view is incorrect.”

Sr. Advocate Gaurav Agrawal appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Resmi Nandanan represented the respondents.

The parties had undergone a marriage ceremony even though the first marriage of both parties was subsisting. The trial court as well as the appellate court considered the question in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) and held that dehors their first marriage, there existed a domestic relationship between the parties.

The High Court noted that the trial court did not consider how the Apex Court dealt with the law in Velusamy D. v. D.Patchaiammal (2010). The Apex Court in Velusamy (supra) held that the ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ was akin to a common law marriage. It was observed that for a common law marriage, even though there need not be a formal marriage, the parties must be “qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.”

The Court clarified that in Indra Sarma (supra), after referring to the observations in Velusamy (supra) it was observed that a woman, who was a party to the relationship, which does not satisfy the requirements of a common law marriage, would suffer social disadvantages and prejudices.

Noting the same, the Bench clarified that the trial court as well the the appellate court did not consider the parameters enlisted by the Apex court in Indra Sarma (supra) to establish whether there was a domestic relationship or not.

Consequently, the Court held that “the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below in favour of the 1st respondent that she was in a domestic relationship with the petitioner and therefore she is entitled to get the reliefs under the PWDV Act is incorrect. M.C.No.78 of 2013 filed by the 1st respondent for the said purpose is liable only to be dismissed.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition.

Cause Title: C v. V & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:58777)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Johnson Gomez, S.Biju (Kizhakkanela), Sanjay Johnson, John Gomez, Arun Johny and Deebu R.

Respondents: PP Seena C.; Advocates Resmi Nandanan and P.Sujith Kumar

Click here to read/download the Order