Long ties, birth of child are signs of relationship in the nature of marriage under DV Act: Bombay High Court

A long-term intimate relationship marked by repeated cohabitation and the birth of a child can amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has reiterated..Justice MM Nerlikar refused to quash proceedings against a Gadchiroli man accused of domestic violence by his partner, but granted relief to his parents and his current wife.The Court also held that the woman’s pleadings about long-term cohabitation, sexual relationship, a forced abortion and the subsequent birth of a girl child prima facie brought the case within the ambit of “domestic relationship” and “relationship like marriage” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act..The petitioner, his parents and his wife had sought quashing of criminal proceedings against them pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi, as well as orders passed in 2022 and 2023 directing him to pay maintenance to his partner and their minor daughter.The woman and her minor daughter had approached the magistrate alleging domestic violence rooted in a long-standing intimate relationship with the petitioner..According to the complaint and the first information report (FIR), the petitioner and the woman were in a relationship during which she first conceived and then aborted a pregnancy at his insistence. The relationship continued and she later gave birth to a child.After the petitioner allegedly refused to marry her, she lodged a complaint alleging rape under the Indian Penal Code and under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He subsequently married his present wife on July 6, 2022, but the High Court held that this later marriage could not be used to deny his previous partner protection under the DV Act at the threshold stage..The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no shared household and that, at best, the parties had an occasional sexual relationship, submitting that “merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not come under the purview of domestic relationship”.However, the Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment to observe that the duration of the relationship, the nature of sexual ties and the presence of children are strong indicators of a marriage-like relationship..Referring to the DV complaint filed by the woman, the Court noted the woman's specific averment that the petitioner had acknowledged their relationship as that of husband and wife.“Considering the above, prima facie, it could be gathered that petitioner and his partner were having a relationship in the nature of marriage, as they were in relationship for long time and out of the said relationship, a child was born,” the High Court observed.The judge emphasized that it was “not inclined to quash the complaint at this threshold where the fact has emerged that out of the relationship a female child was born”..The Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioner, holding that evidence would have to be led before any final decision. However, it quashed the proceedings against his parents and wife, since there were no specific allegations against them to attract provisions of the DV Act..Advocate AR Fule, appeared for the petitioners. Advocate JA Anthony appeared for the complainant woman..[Read order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.