The Court rejected the man’s argument that since he was already married, the woman could not claim the benefits of the DV Act for a live-in relationship.
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently confirmed an order requiring a man to pay maintenance to a woman he was in a live-in relationship with, as well as her three-year-old daughter.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas looked into whether a woman in a live-in relationship can receive maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), 2005. He noted that the woman had clearly stated she was unaware of the man’s previous family, and the man failed to present any evidence showing that she knew about his marriage and children.
As a result, the Court determined that the relationship between the applicant and the respondent was akin to a marriage.
The Court was considering a revision petition filed by the husband challenging a verdict that upheld a magistrate’s order requiring him to pay ₹4,000 per month in maintenance to the woman, ₹2,000 per month for the child, and ₹50,000 in compensation, to be paid in five installments. The couple had married in 2016 and had a child together. The woman accused the man of cruelty, citing his alcohol abuse and use of abusive language, which led her to file both a police complaint and a maintenance application under the DV Act.
The man argued that he was already married with three children and denied that he had married the woman or that they had a child together.
While rejecting his appeal against the maintenance order, the Court pointed out that the DV Act was created to protect a woman’s right to live in her matrimonial home. This Act has special features with special provisions under law which provides protection to a woman to live in a violence-free home.”
The Court also dismissed the man’s claim that, because he was already married, the woman was not entitled to the protections of the DV Act for a live-in relationship.
“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,” the Court observed.
The Court cited the case of Lalita Toppo v. The State of Jharkhand, where it was ruled that victims, including estranged wives or live-in partners, are entitled to greater relief than what is available under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.
The Court also highlighted that the DV Act provides the right to live in a “shared household,” offering broader protection to women beyond just financial maintenance.
The Court consequently dismissed the appeal, ruling that the relationship between the man and the woman qualified as a domestic relationship under the DV Act.
