Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma .

Supreme Court Of India (Nov 26, 2013)

SUMMARY

Facts

The appellant and the respondent were in a live- in relationship since 1993. The
respondent's family opposed their relationship and ultimately forced him to leave the
company of the appellant. The appellant alleged that the respondent left her without
maintaining her. The appellant filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) claiming maintenance.
Issues

The main issue in this case was whether a live- in relationship would amount to a
"relationship in the nature of marriage" falling within the definition of "domestic
relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act and whether the disruption of such a
relationship by failure to maintain a woman involved in such a relationship amounts to
"domestic violence" within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.
Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the lower courts. The
court held that the appellant was not a victim of any fraudulent or bigamous marriage and
it was a live-in relationship for mutual benefits. Therefore, the court held that there has not
been any domestic violence, within the scope of Section 3 of the DV Act entitling the
appellant to claim maintenance.
Reasoning

The DV Act has been enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women
from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in
the society. The Act defines various terms like "aggrieved person", "domestic
relationship", "respondent", and "shared household". The Act recognizes only heterosexual
relationships and not same-sex relationships like gay or lesbian. The Act also recognizes
only a "relationship in the nature of marriage" and not a live- in relationship simpliciter.
The court laid down some guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live- in
relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" under
Section 2(f) of the DV Act.
Impact

This case clarifies the scope and meaning of the expression "relationship in the nature of
marriage" under the DV Act. The court held that a live-in relationship can be considered a
"relationship in the nature of marriage" if it has some characteristics of a marriage like
exclusivity and monogamy. This case also highlights the need for proper legislation or

Printed by licensee : Ahmed Jamal Siddiqui (Student) Page 1 of 2

amendment of the Act to regulate such types of live-in relationships upon termination or
disruption.

Printed by licensee : Ahmed Jamal Siddiqui (Student) Page 2 of 2