Delhi High Court upholds order of interim maintenance awarded to woman claiming to be in live-in relationship with married man

The Delhi High Court recently upheld an order by the lower Court extending interim maintenance to woman claiming to be in a live-in relationship with a married man ( Parveen Tandon vs. Tanika Tandon ).

. Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the woman presented prima facie evidence of a shared household though the same can be conclusively determined only after leading evidence.

But maintenance in interim would be necessary for the welfare of the child and towards accommodation and the same is enabled by Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (DV Act), the Court said.

. “The (DV) Act enables the wife or the female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner. The Act is meant to provide for the rights of women to secure housing, ” the Court said.

. The parties began their relationship in 2009, while they were both married to their respective spouses. The woman divorced her husband in 2014 and married the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that his wife was on dialysis and would not survive for long, so he began living with the respondent woman.

. It was submitted by the respondent that the petitioner was listed as the father of her child in school records and was shown as a nominee in her bank accounts thereby establishing a domestic relationship between the two.

. After residing together for six years, in 2020, disputes arose between the parties.

. The woman filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking interim maintenance.

She also filed a complaint and sought an order restraining the petitioner from evicting her from the rented accommodation.

The Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated August 17, 2020 restrained the petitioner from dispossessing the woman of the house.

By another order dated October 26, 2020, Metropolitan Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay an ad-interim maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month.

Appeal by the petitioner against the said orders were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge leading to the present plea before the High Court.

. The petitioner argued that the application filed by the woman was not maintainable since no domestic relationship persisted between the parties as the woman knew that the etitioner was married.

. However, the Court rejected this argument stating that the couple had proclaimed to the world at large that they are both husband and wife by way of the marriage deed and cohabiting for several years,

“ The documents placed before this Court shows that the couple has held themselves out in the society as being akin to spouses which fact is evident from the marriage-cum-agreement deed, affidavits, the school records of the child and the bank statements of the respondent. The parties are majors, they have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time. The respondent has already taken divorce from her husband, ” the Court noted.

. The Court also placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma which laid down tests to determine whether a relationship would be in the nature of marriage.

It included factors like duration of the period of the relationship, the question as to whether there was a shared household or not, the pooling of the resources and financial arrangements, the domestic arrangements, the socialisation in public, the intention and the conduct of the parties, and emphasised that the same can only be determined by leading evidence.

. In the instant case, the Court noted that materials in the form of photographs and other documents showing that the petitioner and the respondent have married each other have been produced. As per the school records of the child, the petitioner is shown as the father of the child.

"All these materials have to be examined. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has not entered into any rental agreement and that the agreements, affidavits and the photographs produced by the respondent herein are not genuine. All these facts can be established only after evidence is led," the Court said.

The question as to whether the respondent was duped by the petitioner or whether she was a party to an adulterous and bigamous relationship or not and whether her conduct would not entitle her for any protection under the DV Act can be determined only after the evidence is led, as was done in the case of Indra Sarma, the Court said.

It, therefore, dismissed the petition.

. Advocates Utkarsh and Anshu Priyanka represented the Petitioner, the Respondent was represented by Advocate Kamal Anand.

. [Read Order]

Delhi High Court upholds order of interim maintenance awarded to woman claiming to be in live-in relationship with married man

Shagun Suryam

Related Stories