Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Maintenance Granted Under Domestic Violence Act To Woman In Live-In Relationship
|The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed an order requiring a man to provide financial support to a woman with whom he had been in a live-in relationship, as well as their three-year-old daughter.
The case arose from a revision petition filed by the man contesting a lower court's decision that mandated he pay ₹4,000 per month in maintenance to the woman, an additional ₹2,000 per month for the child, and a one-time compensation of ₹50,000, payable in five installments. The couple had entered into a marriage in 2016 and had a child together. The woman accused the man of cruelty linked to his alcohol abuse and verbal mistreatment, leading her to file a police report and an application for maintenance under the DV Act.
A Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas said, “Material placed on record and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant is already a married person and therefore, respondent No.1 cannot be granted the benefit of the D.V. Act as she cannot fall within the ambit of a live-in relationship, deserves to be rejected. The applicant has not produced any evidence to prove that respondent No.1 knew about his marriage and children before entering into the relationship, from which respondent No.2 was born.”
Advocate Ramsevak Soni appeared for the applicant.
The man claimed that he was already married with three children from that marriage, denying any legal marriage with the woman or the birth of a child from their relationship. However, the Court dismissed his claims and upheld the maintenance order.
The Court emphasized that the DV Act was specifically designed to protect a woman's right to live in a domestic environment free from violence. It stated, “This Act has special features with special provisions under law which provides protection to a woman to live in a violence-free home.”
The man's argument that the woman could not claim benefits under the DV Act because of his existing marriage was also rejected. The Court noted that he failed to produce any evidence that the woman was aware of his marital status and family prior to their relationship, including the circumstances surrounding the birth of their child.
The Court referenced a precedent from the case of Lalita Toppo v. The State of Jharkhand, which established that victims, whether estranged wives or live-in partners, are entitled to greater relief than what is stipulated under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973. Furthermore, the DV Act entitles women to reside in a "shared household," thereby offering a more extensive range of protections beyond mere financial support.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the man's appeal, affirming that the relationship between him and the woman fell within the parameters of a domestic relationship as defined by the DV Act.
Cause Title: X v. Y & Anr., [2024:CGHC:39625]