Where Presumption Of Marriage Is Rebutted, Live In Relationship Would Not Be In Nature Of Marriage: Indra Sarma Vs VKV Sarma

Date of judgement:
26th November, 2013

Bench:
Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Parties:
Appellant –INDRA SARMA
Respondents –V.K.V. SARMA

SUBJECT

The Apex Court, in this case, held that a concubine cannot maintain a relationship in the nature of marriage as such a relation would not be monogamous and would not be exclusive. The Court held that where the appellant lived with the respondent while being aware of the fact that the later was married and had children born out of his first marriage, there could be no presumption of marriage between the appellant and the respondent.

OVERVIEW

• The appellant and the respondent used to work in the same company and subsequently intimate relations developed between them and they started living together.
• The appellant stated that as a result of the relationship, she became pregnant thrice and had to undergo abortion. She further alleged that the respondent used to force her to take contraceptives in order to avoid further pregnancies.
• Furthermore, the respondent had taken a loan of 2.5 lakh from the appellant and failed to maintain her.
• The appellant filed a petition before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 12 of the DV Act.
• The respondent stated that he had given shelter to the appellant only on sympathetic grounds after the death of the appellant's father.
• He denied taking any money from the appellant and contended that he had rather spent huge amounts on the medical treatment of the appellant.
• It was further contended that the pregnancies were terminated on account of the appellant's ill health.
• The respondent opined that domestic violence was established and subsequently ordered the respondent to pay a maintenance of 18,000 per month.
• The respondent filed an unsuccessful appeal before the Sessions Court. Subsequently, he approached the High Court.
• The High Court was of the opinion that the relationship between the respondent and the appellant would not fall within the domain of the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" and hence set aside the order of the lower Court.
• Subsequently, the respondent filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

• Section 12: Application to Magistrate

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether live in relationship falls within the domain of the expression "domestic relationship"?

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT

• The appellant submitted that the relationship was a "relationship in the nature of marriage" as provided under Section 2(f) of the Act.
• Furthermore, the learned amicus curiae also submitted that a man marrying a second wife during the subsistence of the first marriage cannot escape his liability to maintain the second wife. Similarly, the respondent had a duty to maintain the appellant

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT

• The respondent argued that the appellant was not a victim of fraudulent marriage as she was aware of the fact that the respondent was married.
• The live in relationship existed for mutual benefit.

JUDGMENT ANALYSIS

• The Court noted that marriage is an institution of significant importance and mutual obligations and duties flow out of this relationship.Legally married couples have to discharge several legal obligations and duties unlike unmarried couples living in a live-in relationship.
• The Court observed that Section 2(f) of the Act is restrictive and exhaustive in nature.The Court referred to Litham v. Hennessey, in which the US Supreme Court had held that meretricious relationship is based upon the purpose of the relationship, cohabitation and other important factors.
• In the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 2006 SC 2522], it was observed that while live in relationship may not be illegal, it is perceived as immoral.
• While determining whether a relationship will fall within the domain of Section 2(f), all aspects of the interpersonal relationship must be taken into consideration.
• The Court held that the appellant was aware of the marriage of the respondent and hence such a relationship could not be held to be in nature of marriage as it would not have exclusivety.
• The Court stated that the following factors may be taken into consideration while determining whether a relationship is in the nature of marriage or not:

1. Duration of the relationship
2. Whether the parties have been living in a shared household
3. Financial arrangements and pooling of resources for mutual companionship
4. Entrustment of responsibilities in a domestic arrangement
5. Sexual relationship not just for pleasure but for emotional support, care and companionship
6. Children, if any, born out of the marriage and sharing of responsibility to raise the children
7. Socializing in public as if the parties are husband and wife
8. Conduct of the parties and their intention with respect to the relationship

• In the instant cases there was no evidence that the parties provided each other with companionship or mutual support. Nor was there any evidence that the parties conducted themselves as husband and wife.
• Moreover, the respondent never claimed in public that the appellant was his wife. There was no evidence that there was pooling of resources among the parties.
• Thus, the Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not in the nature of marriage. Thus, the failure on the part of the respondent to maintain the appellant would not amount to domestic violence

CONCLUSION

The Court rightly observed that even in a live in relationship, there exist certain inequities and women are usually the sufferer. Thus, the Court recommended that the Parliament must bring proper Legislation to address the grievances of such women and to protect the interests of the children born out of such relationships.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement