The Court refused to quash DV Act proceedings against a man after finding signs of a marriage‑like relationship, but dropped a case against his parents and current wife.
The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has reaffirmed that long-term domesticity, combined with parenthood, can elevate a live-in relationship to a “marriage-like” status under the DV Act. Justice MM Nerlikar declined to drop domestic violence charges against a man from Gadchiroli, noting that the couple’s history—which included extended cohabitation and the birth of a daughter—met the legal threshold for a domestic relationship under Section 2(f). However, the court did provide relief by dismissing the case against the man’s parents and his current wife.
The petitioner, along with his parents and spouse, moved to dismiss both the criminal proceedings in Chamorshi and the 2022/2023 orders requiring him to support his former partner and their child. The case began when the woman filed a domestic violence complaint, describing a long-term intimate bond. She alleged that the petitioner pressured her into an abortion during their first pregnancy, though they later had a daughter together.
Despite the petitioner’s later marriage to another woman in July 2022, the High Court ruled that this did not strip his former partner of her rights under the DV Act. While his defense claimed their interactions were merely “occasional” or “one-night stands” rather than a shared household, the Court disagreed. Citing Supreme Court precedent, Justice Nerlikar pointed to the length of the union and the birth of their child as proof of a marriage-like bond, especially since the woman claimed the petitioner had previously recognized her as his 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”.
Finding no grounds to intervene at this stage, the Court upheld the proceedings against the primary petitioner to allow for a detailed trial. However, the lack of distinct claims against his family members led to the quashing of their involvement. Advocates AR Fule and JA Anthony served as counsel for the petitioners and the woman, respectively.
