Why is this case important for PCS-J and HJS?

It helps in understanding legal principles, ratio decidendi and judicial reasoning.

Indra Sarma Versus V.K.V. Sarma , New Delhi, November 26, 2013

Q: What is Indra Sarma Versus V.K.V. Sarma , New Delhi, November 26, 2013?

It is a landmark Supreme Court judgment important for judiciary exams.

Head Note

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 26 Nov 2013

&lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp; Live-in or marriage&amp;nbsp;like relationship is neither a&amp;nbsp; crime&amp;nbsp; nor&amp;nbsp; a&amp;nbsp; sin though socially unacceptable in this country.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The&amp;nbsp; decision&amp;nbsp; to&amp;nbsp; marry&amp;nbsp; or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is&amp;nbsp; intensely&amp;nbsp; personal.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;nbsp; We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether&amp;nbsp; a&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;ldquo;live-in relationship&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;would amount to a &amp;ldquo;relationship in&amp;nbsp; the&amp;nbsp; nature&amp;nbsp; of&amp;nbsp; marriage&amp;rdquo; falling within the definition of &amp;ldquo;domestic relationship&amp;rdquo; under Section&amp;nbsp; 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short&amp;nbsp; &amp;ldquo;the DV Act&amp;rdquo;) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain&amp;nbsp; a women involved in such a relationship amounts to &amp;ldquo;domestic violence&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp; within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;

Detailed Summary

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2009 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.4895 OF 2012) &nbsp; Indra Sarma&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &hellip; Appellant Versus V.K.V. Sarma&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &hellip; Respondent &nbsp; J U D G M E N T &nbsp; K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. &nbsp; Leave granted. &nbsp; 2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a&nbsp; crime&nbsp; nor&nbsp; a&nbsp; sin though socially unacceptable in this country.&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; decision&nbsp; to&nbsp; marry&nbsp; or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is&nbsp; intensely&nbsp; personal. &nbsp; 3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether&nbsp; a&nbsp; &ldquo;live-in relationship&rdquo; would amount to a &ldquo;relationship in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage&rdquo; falling within the definition of &ldquo;domestic relationship&rdquo; under Section&nbsp; 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short&nbsp; &ldquo;the DV Act&rdquo;) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain&nbsp; a women involved in such a relationship amounts to &ldquo;domestic violence&rdquo;&nbsp; within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act. &nbsp; FACTS: 4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Appellant and respondent were working together in a&nbsp; private&nbsp; company. The Respondent, who was working as a Personal Officer of the Company,&nbsp; was a married person having two children and the appellant, aged 33&nbsp; years,&nbsp; was unmarried.&nbsp;&nbsp; Constant contacts between them developed intimacy&nbsp; and&nbsp; in&nbsp; the year 1992, appellant left the&nbsp; job&nbsp; from&nbsp; the&nbsp; above-mentioned&nbsp; Company&nbsp; and started living with the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; in&nbsp; a&nbsp; shared&nbsp; household.&nbsp;&nbsp; Appellant&rsquo;s family members, including her father, brother and sister, and also the&nbsp; wife of&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent,&nbsp; opposed&nbsp; that&nbsp; live-in-relationship.&nbsp;&nbsp; She&nbsp; has&nbsp;&nbsp; also maintained the stand that the respondent, in fact,&nbsp; started&nbsp; a&nbsp; business&nbsp; in her name and that they were earning from that business.&nbsp;&nbsp; After&nbsp; some&nbsp; time, the respondent shifted the business&nbsp; to&nbsp; his&nbsp; residence&nbsp; and&nbsp; continued&nbsp; the business with the help of his son, thereby depriving her&nbsp; right&nbsp; of&nbsp; working and earning.&nbsp; Appellant has also stated that both of them lived together&nbsp; in a&nbsp; shared&nbsp; household&nbsp; and,&nbsp; due&nbsp; to&nbsp; their&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; became pregnant on three occasions, though all resulted in&nbsp; abortion.&nbsp;&nbsp; Respondent, it was alleged, used to force the appellant to&nbsp; take&nbsp; contraceptive&nbsp; methods to avoid pregnancy.&nbsp; Further, it was also stated that the respondent took&nbsp; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the appellant stating that he would buy a land&nbsp; in her name, but the same was not done.&nbsp; Respondent also took&nbsp; money&nbsp; from&nbsp; the appellant to start a beauty parlour for his wife.&nbsp;&nbsp; Appellant&nbsp; also&nbsp; alleged that, during the year 2006, respondent took a&nbsp; loan&nbsp; of&nbsp; Rs.2,50,000/-&nbsp; from her and had not returned.&nbsp; Further, it was also stated that the&nbsp; respondent, all along, was harassing the appellant by&nbsp; not&nbsp; exposing&nbsp; her&nbsp; as&nbsp; his&nbsp; wife publicly, or permitting to suffix his name after the name of the&nbsp; appellant. &nbsp;&nbsp;Appellant also&nbsp; alleged&nbsp; that&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; never&nbsp; used&nbsp; to&nbsp; take&nbsp; her anywhere, either to&nbsp; the&nbsp; houses&nbsp; of&nbsp; relatives&nbsp; or&nbsp; friends&nbsp; or&nbsp; functions. Appellant also alleged that the respondent never used to&nbsp; accompany&nbsp; her&nbsp; to the&nbsp; hospital&nbsp; or&nbsp; make&nbsp; joint&nbsp; Bank&nbsp; account,&nbsp;&nbsp; execute&nbsp;&nbsp; documents,&nbsp;&nbsp; etc. Respondent&rsquo;s&nbsp; family&nbsp; constantly&nbsp; opposed&nbsp; their&nbsp; live-in&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; and ultimately forced him to leave the company&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; and&nbsp; it&nbsp; was alleged that he left the company of the appellant without&nbsp; maintaining&nbsp; her. &nbsp; 5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Appellant then preferred Criminal Misc. No. 692 of 2007 under&nbsp; Section 12 of the DV Act before the III Additional&nbsp; Chief&nbsp; Metropolitan&nbsp; Magistrate, Bangalore, seeking the following reliefs: &nbsp;&nbsp; 1) Pass a Protection Order under Section 18 of the DV Act prohibiting the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;respondent from committing any act of domestic&nbsp; violence&nbsp; against&nbsp; the appellant and her relatives, and further&nbsp; prohibiting&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent &nbsp;from alienating the assets both&nbsp; moveable&nbsp; and&nbsp; immoveable&nbsp; properties owned by the respondent; &nbsp;&nbsp; 2) Pass a residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act and&nbsp; direct&nbsp; the respondent to provide for an independent residence as&nbsp; being&nbsp; provided &nbsp;by the respondent or in the alternative a joint residence&nbsp; along&nbsp; with the respondent where he is residing presently and for the&nbsp; maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month regularly as being provided earlier or in the alternative to pay the permanent maintenance charges at&nbsp; the&nbsp; rate&nbsp; of Rs.25,000/- per month for the rest of the life; &nbsp;&nbsp; 3) Pass a monetary order under Section 20 of the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; directing&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; respondent to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the operation, pre&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; post operative medication, tests etc and follow up treatments; &nbsp;&nbsp; 4) Pass a compensation order under Section 22 of the DV Act to a&nbsp; sum&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Rs.3,50,000/- towards damages for misusing the funds of the sister&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the appellant, mental torture and emotional feelings; and &nbsp;&nbsp; 5) Pass an ex-parte&nbsp; interim&nbsp; order&nbsp; under&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 23&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; directing the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; to&nbsp; pay&nbsp; Rs.75,000/-&nbsp; towards&nbsp; the&nbsp; medical &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; expenses and pay the maintenance charges @ Rs.25,000/-&nbsp; per&nbsp; month&nbsp; as &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; being paid by the respondent earlier. &nbsp; 6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Respondent filed detailed objections to the application&nbsp; stating&nbsp; that it was on sympathetical grounds that he gave shelter to her&nbsp; in&nbsp; a&nbsp; separate house after noticing the fact that she was&nbsp; abandoned&nbsp; by&nbsp; her&nbsp; parents&nbsp; and relatives, especially after the demise of her father.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; She&nbsp; had&nbsp; also&nbsp; few litigations against her&nbsp; sister&nbsp; for&nbsp; her&nbsp; father&rsquo;s&nbsp; property&nbsp; and&nbsp; she&nbsp; had approached the respondent for moral as well as monetary support&nbsp; since&nbsp; they were working together in a Company.&nbsp; The respondent&nbsp; has&nbsp; admitted&nbsp; that&nbsp; he had cohabited with the appellant since 1993.&nbsp; The fact that he&nbsp; was&nbsp; married and had&nbsp; two&nbsp; children&nbsp; was&nbsp; known&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant.&nbsp;&nbsp; Pregnancy&nbsp; of&nbsp; the appellant was terminated with her as well as&nbsp; her&nbsp; brother&rsquo;s&nbsp; consent&nbsp; since she was not maintaining good health.&nbsp; The respondent had&nbsp; also&nbsp; spent&nbsp; large amounts for her medical treatment and&nbsp; the&nbsp; allegation&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; had&nbsp; taken money from the appellant was denied.&nbsp; During the month of April,&nbsp; 2007,&nbsp; the respondent&nbsp; had&nbsp; sent&nbsp; a&nbsp; cheque&nbsp; for&nbsp; Rs.2,50,000/-&nbsp; towards&nbsp; her&nbsp;&nbsp; medical expenses, drawn in the name of her sister which was encashed.&nbsp;&nbsp; Further,&nbsp; it was stated, it was for getting further amounts and to tarnish the&nbsp; image&nbsp; of the respondent, the application was preferred under the DV Act.&nbsp; Before&nbsp; the learned Magistrate, appellant examined herself as P.W.1&nbsp; and&nbsp; gave&nbsp; evidence according to the&nbsp; averments&nbsp; made&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; petition.&nbsp;&nbsp; Respondent&nbsp; examined himself as R.W.1.&nbsp; Child Development Project Officer was examined as&nbsp; R.W.2. &nbsp;The learned Magistrate found proof that the parties had lived together&nbsp; for a considerable period of time, for about 18 years, and then&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent left&nbsp; the&nbsp; company&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; without&nbsp; maintaining&nbsp; her.&nbsp;&nbsp; Learned Magistrate took the view that the&nbsp; plea&nbsp; of&nbsp; &ldquo;domestic&nbsp; violence&rdquo;&nbsp; had&nbsp; been established, due to the non-maintenance of&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; and&nbsp; passed&nbsp; the order&nbsp; dated&nbsp; 21.7.2009&nbsp; directing&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; to&nbsp; pay&nbsp; an&nbsp; amount&nbsp; of Rs.18,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of the petition. &nbsp; 7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Respondent, aggrieved by the said order&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; learned&nbsp; Magistrate, filed an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 29 of&nbsp; the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act. The Appellate Court, after having noticed that the respondent&nbsp; had&nbsp; admitted the relationship with appellant for over a period&nbsp; of&nbsp; 14&nbsp; years,&nbsp; took&nbsp; the view that, due&nbsp; to&nbsp; their&nbsp; live-in&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; for&nbsp; a&nbsp; considerable&nbsp; long period, non-maintenance of the appellant would amount to&nbsp; domestic&nbsp; violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV&nbsp; Act.&nbsp; The&nbsp; appellate&nbsp; Court&nbsp; also concluded&nbsp; that&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; has&nbsp; no&nbsp; source&nbsp; of&nbsp; income&nbsp; and&nbsp; that&nbsp; the respondent is legally obliged&nbsp; to&nbsp; maintain&nbsp; her&nbsp; and&nbsp; confirmed&nbsp; the&nbsp; order passed by the learned Magistrate. &nbsp; 8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The respondent took up the matter in appeal&nbsp; before&nbsp; the&nbsp; High&nbsp; Court. It was contended before the High Court that the appellant was aware&nbsp; of&nbsp; the fact that the respondent was a married person having two children,&nbsp; yet&nbsp; she developed a relationship, in spite of the opposition raised by the&nbsp; wife&nbsp; of the respondent and also&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&rsquo;s&nbsp; parents.&nbsp; Reliance&nbsp; was&nbsp; also placed on the judgment of this Court&nbsp; in&nbsp; D.&nbsp; Velusamy&nbsp; v.&nbsp; D.&nbsp; Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 and submitted that the tests laid down&nbsp; in&nbsp; Velusamy&nbsp; case (supra) had not been satisfied.&nbsp;&nbsp; The High Court held that the&nbsp; relationship between the parties would not fall within the ambit of &ldquo;relationship in&nbsp; the nature of marriage&rdquo; and the tests laid down in Velusamy&nbsp; case&nbsp; (supra)&nbsp; have not been satisfied.&nbsp;&nbsp; Consequently, the High Court allowed&nbsp; the&nbsp; appeal&nbsp; and set aside the order passed by the Courts&nbsp; below.&nbsp;&nbsp; Aggrieved&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; same, this appeal has been preferred. &nbsp; &nbsp; 9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Shri Anish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant, submitted that the relationship between the parties continued from&nbsp; 1992&nbsp; to 2006 and since then, the respondent started avoiding the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; without maintaining her.&nbsp;&nbsp; Learned counsel submitted that the&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; between them constituted a &ldquo;relationship in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage&rdquo;&nbsp; within&nbsp; the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which takes in every relationship&nbsp; by a man with a woman, sharing household, irrespective of the fact whether&nbsp; the respondent is a married person or not.&nbsp; Learned counsel also submitted&nbsp; that the tests laid down in Velusamy case (supra) have also been satisfied. &nbsp; &nbsp; 10.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ms. Jyotika Kalra, learned amicus curiae, took us elaborately&nbsp; through the provisions of the DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; as&nbsp; well&nbsp; as&nbsp; the&nbsp; objects&nbsp; and&nbsp; reasons&nbsp; for enacting such a legislation.&nbsp; Learned amicus curiae submitted that&nbsp; the&nbsp; Act is intended to provide for protection of rights of women who are victims&nbsp; of violence of any type occurring in the family.&nbsp; Learned&nbsp; amicus&nbsp; curiae&nbsp; also submitted that the various provisions of the DV Act are intended to&nbsp; achieve the constitutional principles laid down in Article&nbsp; 15(3),&nbsp; reinforced&nbsp; vide Article 39&nbsp; of the Constitution of India. Learned amicus&nbsp; curiae&nbsp; also&nbsp; made reference to the Malimath Committee report and&nbsp; submitted&nbsp; that&nbsp; a&nbsp; man&nbsp; who marries a second wife, during the subsistence of the first wife, should&nbsp; not escape his liability to maintain his second wife,&nbsp; even&nbsp; under&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 125 CrPC.&nbsp;&nbsp; Learned amicus curiae also referred to a&nbsp; recent&nbsp; judgment&nbsp; of&nbsp; this Court in Deoki Panjhiyara v. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Another&nbsp; (2013) 2 SCC 137 in support of her contention. &nbsp; &nbsp; 11.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel&nbsp; appearing&nbsp; for&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent, made&nbsp; extensive&nbsp; research&nbsp; on&nbsp; the &nbsp;subject&nbsp; and&nbsp; made&nbsp; available&nbsp;&nbsp; valuable materials.&nbsp;&nbsp; Learned&nbsp; counsel&nbsp; referred&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; several&nbsp;&nbsp; judgments&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; the Constitutional Courts of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada,&nbsp; etc. and&nbsp; also&nbsp; referred&nbsp; to&nbsp; parallel&nbsp; legislations&nbsp; on&nbsp; the&nbsp; subject&nbsp; in&nbsp; other countries. Learned&nbsp; counsel&nbsp; submitted&nbsp; that&nbsp; the&nbsp; principle&nbsp; laid&nbsp; down&nbsp; in Velusamy case (supra) has been correctly applied by the High Court&nbsp; and,&nbsp; on facts,&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; could &nbsp;not&nbsp; establish&nbsp; that&nbsp; their&nbsp; relationship&nbsp;&nbsp; is&nbsp;&nbsp; a &ldquo;relationship in the nature of marriage&rdquo; so as to fall within&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 2(f) of the DV Act.&nbsp; Learned counsel also submitted that&nbsp; the&nbsp; parties&nbsp; were&nbsp; not qualified to enter into a legal marriage and the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; knew&nbsp; that&nbsp; the respondent was a married person.&nbsp; Further, the appellant was&nbsp; not&nbsp; a&nbsp; victim of any fraudulent or bigamous marriage and it&nbsp; was&nbsp; a&nbsp; live-in&nbsp; relationship for mutual benefits, consequently, the High Court was right in holding&nbsp; that there has not been any domestic violence, within the scope of Section&nbsp; 3&nbsp; of the DV Act entitling the appellant to claim maintenance. &nbsp; &nbsp; 12.&nbsp;&nbsp; We have to examine whether the non maintenance of the appellant&nbsp; in&nbsp; a broken live-in-relationship, which is stated to be a&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; not&nbsp; in the nature of a marriage, will amount&nbsp; to&nbsp; &ldquo;domestic&nbsp; violence&rdquo;&nbsp; within&nbsp; the definition of Section 3 of the DV Act, enabling the appellant&nbsp; to&nbsp; seek&nbsp; one or more reliefs provided under Section 12 of the DV Act. &nbsp; &nbsp; 13.&nbsp;&nbsp; Before examining the various issues raised in this appeal, which&nbsp; have far reaching consequences with regard&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; rights&nbsp; and&nbsp; liabilities&nbsp; of parties indulging in live-in&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; let&nbsp; us&nbsp; examine&nbsp; the&nbsp; relevant provisions of the DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; and&nbsp; the&nbsp; impact&nbsp; of&nbsp; those&nbsp; provisions&nbsp; on&nbsp; such relationships. &nbsp; D.V. ACT &nbsp; 14.&nbsp;&nbsp; The D.V.&nbsp; Act has been enacted to provide a remedy in&nbsp; Civil&nbsp; Law&nbsp; for protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and&nbsp; to&nbsp; prevent occurrence of domestic violence in&nbsp; the&nbsp; society.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; has&nbsp; been enacted also to provide an effective&nbsp; protection&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; rights&nbsp; of&nbsp; women guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of&nbsp; any&nbsp; kind occurring within the family. &nbsp; &nbsp; 15.&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;Domestic Violence&rdquo; is undoubtedly a human&nbsp; rights&nbsp; issue,&nbsp; which&nbsp; was not properly taken care of in this country even&nbsp; though&nbsp; the&nbsp; Vienna&nbsp; Accord 1994 and&nbsp; the&nbsp; Beijing&nbsp; Declaration&nbsp; and&nbsp; Platform&nbsp; for&nbsp; Action&nbsp; (1995)&nbsp; had acknowledged that domestic violence was undoubtedly a&nbsp; human&nbsp; rights&nbsp; issue. UN Committee on Convention on Elimination of&nbsp; All&nbsp; Forms&nbsp; of&nbsp; Discrimination Against Women in its general recommendations had also&nbsp; exhorted&nbsp; the&nbsp; member countries to take steps to protect&nbsp; women&nbsp; against&nbsp; violence&nbsp; of&nbsp; any&nbsp; kind, especially that occurring within the family, a phenomenon&nbsp; widely&nbsp; prevalent in India.&nbsp; Presently, when a woman is subjected to&nbsp; cruelty&nbsp; by&nbsp; husband&nbsp; or his relatives, it is an offence punishable&nbsp; under&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 498A&nbsp; IPC.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Civil Law, it was noticed, did not address this phenomenon in its&nbsp; entirety. &nbsp;Consequently, the Parliament,&nbsp; to&nbsp; provide&nbsp; more&nbsp; effective&nbsp; protection&nbsp; of rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution under Articles 14, 15&nbsp; and 21, who are victims of&nbsp; violence&nbsp; of&nbsp; any&nbsp; kind&nbsp; occurring&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; family, enacted the DV Act. &nbsp; &nbsp; 16.&nbsp;&nbsp; Chapter IV is the heart&nbsp; and&nbsp; soul&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act,&nbsp; which&nbsp; provides various reliefs to a woman who has or&nbsp; has&nbsp; been&nbsp; in&nbsp; domestic&nbsp; relationship with any adult male person and seeks one or more reliefs provided under&nbsp; the Act.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Magistrate, while entertaining an application from&nbsp; an&nbsp; aggrieved person under Section 12 of the DV Act, can grant the following reliefs: 1) Payment of compensation or damages without&nbsp; prejudice&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; right&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp; such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for&nbsp; injuries &nbsp;&nbsp; caused by the acts of domestic&nbsp; violence&nbsp; committed&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; adult&nbsp; male &nbsp;&nbsp; member, with a prayer for set off against&nbsp; the&nbsp; amount&nbsp; payable&nbsp; under&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp; decree obtained in Court; 2) The Magistrate, under Section 18 of the DV Act, can&nbsp; pass&nbsp; a&nbsp; &ldquo;protection &nbsp;&nbsp; order&rdquo; in favour of the aggrieved&nbsp; person&nbsp; and&nbsp; prohibit&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent &nbsp;&nbsp; from: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a) committing any act of domestic violence; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; c) entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person&nbsp; aggrieved&nbsp; is&nbsp; a&nbsp; child,&nbsp; its&nbsp; school&nbsp; or&nbsp; any &nbsp;other&nbsp; place &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; frequented by the aggrieved person; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; d)&nbsp; attempting&nbsp; to&nbsp; communicate&nbsp; in&nbsp; any&nbsp; form,&nbsp; whatsoever,&nbsp; with&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or&nbsp; electronic &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or telephonic contact; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; e) alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts&nbsp; used &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or held or enjoyed by both the parties,&nbsp; jointly&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; aggrieved &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; f) causing violence to the dependants, other relatives&nbsp; or&nbsp; any&nbsp; person &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; g) committing any other act as specified in the protection order. &nbsp; &nbsp; 3) The Magistrate, while disposing of an application under Section 12(1)&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp; the DV Act, can pass a &ldquo;residence order&rdquo; under Section 19 of the DV&nbsp; Act, &nbsp;&nbsp; in the following manner: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;19. Residence orders.- (1)&nbsp;While disposing of an application under sub- &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied&nbsp; that &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or&nbsp; in&nbsp; any&nbsp; other &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; manner disturbing the possession of the&nbsp; aggrieved&nbsp; person&nbsp; from &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a&nbsp; legal &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or equitable interest in the shared household; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; b) directing the respondent&nbsp; to&nbsp; remove&nbsp; himself&nbsp; from&nbsp; the&nbsp; shared &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; household; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c)&nbsp;restraining&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; or&nbsp; any&nbsp; of&nbsp; his&nbsp; relatives&nbsp; from &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; entering any portion of&nbsp; the&nbsp; shared&nbsp; household&nbsp; in&nbsp; which&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; aggrieved person resides; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (d)&nbsp;restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; shared household or encumbering the same; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;(e)&nbsp;restraining the respondent from renouncing his&nbsp; rights&nbsp; in&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (f)&nbsp;directing the respondent to&nbsp; secure&nbsp; same&nbsp; level&nbsp; of&nbsp; alternate &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; shared&nbsp; household&nbsp; or&nbsp; to&nbsp; pay&nbsp; rent&nbsp; for&nbsp; the&nbsp; same,&nbsp; if&nbsp;&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; circumstances so require: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person who is a woman. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&rdquo; &nbsp; (4)&nbsp;&nbsp; An aggrieved person, while filing an application under&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 12(1) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of the DV Act, is also entitled, under Section 20 of the DV Act, to get &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;monetary reliefs&rdquo; to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a&nbsp; result &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of the domestic violence and&nbsp; such&nbsp; relief&nbsp; may&nbsp; include,&nbsp; but&nbsp; is&nbsp; not &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; limited to,- &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;20. Monetary reliefs.-&nbsp; (1)&nbsp;While disposing of&nbsp; an&nbsp; application&nbsp; under &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; sub-&nbsp; section&nbsp; (1)&nbsp; of&nbsp; section&nbsp; 12,&nbsp; the&nbsp; Magistrate&nbsp; may&nbsp; direct&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; respondent to pay monetary relief to meet&nbsp; the&nbsp; expenses&nbsp; incurred&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the&nbsp; aggrieved &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person as a result&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; domestic&nbsp; violence&nbsp; and&nbsp; such&nbsp; relief&nbsp; may &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; include, but not limited to,- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a)&nbsp;the loss of earnings; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;the medical expenses; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or&nbsp; removal&nbsp; of&nbsp; any &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; property from the control of the aggrieved person; and &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (d)&nbsp;the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as&nbsp; her&nbsp; children, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if any, including an&nbsp; order&nbsp; under&nbsp; or&nbsp; in&nbsp; addition&nbsp; to&nbsp; an&nbsp; order&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal&nbsp; Procedure,&nbsp; 1973 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2 of 1974 ) or any other law for the time being in force. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The monetary reliefs granted under the above mentioned section shall be &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard&nbsp; of&nbsp; living &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to which an aggrieved person is accustomed and the Magistrate&nbsp; has&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly&nbsp; payments&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; maintenance. (5)&nbsp;&nbsp; The Magistrate, under Section 21 of the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act,&nbsp; has&nbsp; the&nbsp; power&nbsp; to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; grant temporary custody of any&nbsp; child&nbsp; or&nbsp; children&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; aggrieved &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person or the person making an application on her behalf&nbsp; and&nbsp; specify, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if necessary, the arrangements for visit of such child or&nbsp; children&nbsp; by &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the respondent. (6)&nbsp;&nbsp; The Magistrate, in addition to other reliefs, under Section 22 of&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DV Act, can pass an order directing the respondent to pay&nbsp; compensation &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and damages for the injuries, including mental&nbsp; torture&nbsp; and&nbsp; emotional &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; distress, caused by the acts of&nbsp; domestic&nbsp; violence&nbsp; committed&nbsp; by&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; respondent. &nbsp; &nbsp; 17.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 26 of the DV Act provides&nbsp; that&nbsp; any&nbsp; relief&nbsp; available&nbsp; under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any&nbsp; legal&nbsp; proceeding, before a Civil Court, family&nbsp; court&nbsp; or&nbsp; a&nbsp; criminal&nbsp; court,&nbsp; affecting&nbsp; the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such&nbsp; proceeding&nbsp; was&nbsp; initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.&nbsp; Further, any relief&nbsp; referred to above may be sought for in addition to and along with any&nbsp; other&nbsp; reliefs that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal&nbsp; proceeding&nbsp; before a civil or criminal court.&nbsp; Further, if any relief has been obtained by&nbsp; the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this&nbsp; Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief. &nbsp; 18.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 3 of the DV Act deals with &ldquo;domestic violence&rdquo;&nbsp; and&nbsp; reads&nbsp; as under: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;3. Definition of domestic violence.- For the purposes of this Act, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any act, omission or commission or&nbsp; conduct&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; shall &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; constitute domestic violence in case it- &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a)&nbsp;harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or tends to do so and includes causing physical&nbsp; abuse,&nbsp; sexual &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; security; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c) has the effect of&nbsp; threatening&nbsp; the&nbsp; aggrieved&nbsp; person&nbsp; or&nbsp; any &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; clause (b); or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (d)&nbsp;otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical&nbsp; or&nbsp; mental, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to the aggrieved person. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section,- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (i)&nbsp; &quot;physical abuse&quot; means any act or conduct which is of&nbsp; such&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person&nbsp; and&nbsp; includes&nbsp; assault,&nbsp; criminal&nbsp;&nbsp; intimidation&nbsp;&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; criminal force; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (ii) &quot;sexual abuse&quot; includes any conduct of a&nbsp; sexual&nbsp; nature&nbsp; that &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of woman; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (iii) &quot;verbal and emotional abuse&quot; includes- &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a)&nbsp;insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling&nbsp; and&nbsp; insults &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child&nbsp; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a male child; and &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;repeated threats to cause physical pain to any&nbsp; person&nbsp; in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whom the aggrieved person is interested. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (iv)&nbsp;&quot;economic abuse&quot; includes- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a)&nbsp;deprivation of all or any economic or financial&nbsp; resources &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law&nbsp; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; custom whether&nbsp; payable&nbsp; under&nbsp; an&nbsp; order&nbsp; of&nbsp; a&nbsp; court&nbsp; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; otherwise or which the aggrieved&nbsp; person&nbsp; requires&nbsp; out&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; necessity&nbsp; including,&nbsp; but&nbsp; not&nbsp;&nbsp; limited&nbsp;&nbsp; to,&nbsp;&nbsp; household &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;necessities for the aggrieved person and her&nbsp; children,&nbsp; if &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; aggrieved person, payment of rental related to&nbsp; the&nbsp; shared &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; household and maintenance; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;disposal of household effects, any&nbsp; alienation&nbsp; of&nbsp; assets &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whether&nbsp;&nbsp; movable&nbsp;&nbsp; or&nbsp;&nbsp; immovable,&nbsp;&nbsp; valuables,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; shares, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; securities, bonds and the like or other property&nbsp; in&nbsp; which &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to&nbsp; use &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; by virtue of the domestic&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; or&nbsp; which&nbsp; may&nbsp; be &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; held by the aggrieved person; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c)&nbsp;prohibition&nbsp; or&nbsp; restriction&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; continued&nbsp;&nbsp; access&nbsp;&nbsp; to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; resources or&nbsp; facilities&nbsp; which&nbsp; the&nbsp; aggrieved&nbsp; person&nbsp; is &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; entitled&nbsp; to&nbsp; use&nbsp; or&nbsp; enjoy&nbsp; by&nbsp; virtue&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; domestic &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship including access to the shared household. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Explanation II.- For the purpose of determining&nbsp; whether&nbsp; any&nbsp; act, &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;omission, commission or&nbsp; conduct&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; constitutes&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; domestic violence&quot;&nbsp; under&nbsp; this&nbsp; section,&nbsp; the&nbsp; overall&nbsp; facts&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.&rdquo; &nbsp; 19.&nbsp;&nbsp; In order to examine as to whether there has been any&nbsp; act,&nbsp; omission, or commission or conduct so as&nbsp; to&nbsp; constitute&nbsp; domestic&nbsp; violence,&nbsp; it&nbsp; is necessary to examine some of the definition clauses under Section 2 of&nbsp; the DV Act.&nbsp; Section 2(a) of the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; defines&nbsp; the&nbsp; expression&nbsp; &ldquo;aggrieved person&rdquo; as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;2(a). &ldquo;Aggrieved person&rdquo; means any woman who is, or has been, in a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have&nbsp; been &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.&rdquo; &nbsp; Section 2(f) defines the expression &ldquo;domestic relationship&rdquo; as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;2(f). &ldquo;Domestic relationship&rdquo; means&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; between&nbsp; two &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; persons who live or have, at any point of time,&nbsp; lived&nbsp; together&nbsp; in&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage,&nbsp; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; through a relationship in the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage,&nbsp; adoption&nbsp; or&nbsp; are &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; family members living together as a joint family.&rdquo; &nbsp; Section 2(q) defines the expression &ldquo;respondent&rdquo; as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;2(q). &ldquo;Respondent&rdquo; means any adult male&nbsp; person&nbsp; who&nbsp; is,&nbsp; or&nbsp; has &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and&nbsp; against &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in the nature of a&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; may&nbsp; also&nbsp; file&nbsp; a&nbsp; complaint&nbsp; against&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relative of the husband or the male partner.&rdquo; &nbsp; Section 2(s)&nbsp; defines&nbsp; the&nbsp; expression&nbsp; &ldquo;shared&nbsp; household&rdquo;&nbsp; and&nbsp; reads&nbsp; as follows: &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&ldquo;2(s). &ldquo;shared&nbsp; household&rdquo;&nbsp; means&nbsp; a&nbsp; household&nbsp; where&nbsp; the&nbsp; person &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in&nbsp; a&nbsp; domestic&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; either singly&nbsp; or&nbsp; along&nbsp; with&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; and&nbsp; includes&nbsp; such&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; household whether owned or tenanted either&nbsp; jointly&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; aggrieved &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either&nbsp; of&nbsp; them&nbsp; in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or&nbsp; both &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; jointly or singly&nbsp; have&nbsp; any&nbsp; right,&nbsp; title,&nbsp; interest&nbsp; or&nbsp; equity&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the aggrieved person has any right, title or&nbsp; interest&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; shared &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; household.&rdquo; &nbsp; 20.&nbsp;&nbsp; We are, in this case, concerned with a &ldquo;live-in relationship&rdquo;&nbsp; which, according to the aggrieved person, is a&nbsp; &ldquo;relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of marriage&rdquo; and it is that relationship which has been disrupted in the sense that the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; failed&nbsp; to&nbsp; maintain&nbsp; the&nbsp; aggrieved&nbsp; person,&nbsp; which, according&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant,&nbsp; amounts&nbsp; to&nbsp; &ldquo;domestic&nbsp;&nbsp; violence&rdquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The respondent&nbsp; maintained&nbsp; the&nbsp; stand&nbsp; that&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; between&nbsp;&nbsp; the appellant and the respondent was&nbsp; not&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of marriage but&nbsp; a&nbsp; live-in-relationship&nbsp; simplicitor&nbsp; and&nbsp; the&nbsp; alleged&nbsp; act, omission, commission or conduct of&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; would&nbsp; not&nbsp; constitute &ldquo;domestic violence&rdquo; so as to claim any protection orders under Section&nbsp; 18, 19 or 20 of the DV Act. &nbsp; &nbsp; 21.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We have to first examine whether the appellant&nbsp; was&nbsp; involved&nbsp; in&nbsp; a domestic relationship with the respondent.&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 2(f)&nbsp; refers&nbsp; to&nbsp; five categories of relationship, such as, related&nbsp; by&nbsp; consanguinity,&nbsp; marriage, relationship in the nature of marriage,&nbsp; adoption,&nbsp; family&nbsp; members&nbsp; living together as a joint family, of which we are, in this case,&nbsp; concerned&nbsp; with an alleged relationship in the nature of marriage. &nbsp; &nbsp; 22.&nbsp;&nbsp; Before we examine whether the respondent has&nbsp; committed&nbsp; any&nbsp; act&nbsp; of domestic violence, we&nbsp; have&nbsp; to&nbsp; first&nbsp; examine&nbsp; whether&nbsp; the&nbsp; relationship between them was a &ldquo;relationship in the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage&rdquo;&nbsp; within&nbsp; the definition of Section 3 read with Section&nbsp; 2(f)&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act.&nbsp;&nbsp; Before examining the term &ldquo;relationship in the nature of&nbsp; marriage&rdquo;,&nbsp; we&nbsp; have&nbsp; to first examine what is &ldquo;marriage&rdquo;, as understood in law. &nbsp; MARRIAGE AND MARITAL RELATIONSHIP: &nbsp; 23.&nbsp;&nbsp; Marriage is often described as one&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; basic&nbsp; civil&nbsp; rights&nbsp; of man/woman, which is voluntarily undertaken by the parties in&nbsp; public&nbsp; in&nbsp; a formal way, and once concluded, recognizes the parties as husband and wife. Three elements of common law marriage are (1) agreement to be&nbsp; married&nbsp; (2) living together as husband and wife, (3) holding out&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; public&nbsp; that they are married.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sharing a common household and duty&nbsp; to&nbsp; live&nbsp; together form part of the &lsquo;Consortium Omnis Vitae&rdquo; which&nbsp; obliges&nbsp; spouses&nbsp; to&nbsp; live together, afford each other reasonable marital privileges and rights and be honest and faithful to each other.&nbsp; One of the&nbsp; most&nbsp; important&nbsp; invariable consequences of marriage is the reciprocal support and&nbsp; the&nbsp; responsibility of maintenance of the common household, jointly and severally.&nbsp; Marriage as an institution has great legal significance&nbsp; and&nbsp; various&nbsp; obligations&nbsp; and duties flow out of marital relationship, as&nbsp; per&nbsp; law,&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; matter&nbsp; of inheritance of property, successionship, etc. Marriage, therefore, involves legal requirements of formality, publicity, exclusivity and all&nbsp; the&nbsp; legal consequences flow out of that relationship. &nbsp; 24.&nbsp;&nbsp; Marriages in India take place either following the&nbsp; personal&nbsp; Law&nbsp; of the Religion to which a party is belonged or following&nbsp; the&nbsp; provisions&nbsp; of the Special Marriage Act.&nbsp;&nbsp; Marriage, as per the Common Law, constitutes&nbsp; a contract between a man and a woman, in which the parties undertake to&nbsp; live together and&nbsp; support&nbsp; each&nbsp; other.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Marriage,&nbsp; as&nbsp; a&nbsp; concept,&nbsp; is&nbsp; also nationally and internationally recognized.&nbsp;&nbsp; O&rsquo;Regan,&nbsp; J.,&nbsp; in&nbsp; Dawood&nbsp; and Another v. Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (3) SA 936&nbsp; (CC)&nbsp; noted as follows: &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;Marriage&nbsp; and&nbsp; the&nbsp; family&nbsp; are&nbsp; social&nbsp; institutions&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; vital &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; importance. Entering into and sustaining a&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; is&nbsp; a&nbsp; matter&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; intense private significance to the parties to that marriage&nbsp; for&nbsp; they &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; make a promise to one another to establish&nbsp; and&nbsp; maintain&nbsp; an&nbsp; intimate &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship for the rest of their lives which they acknowledge obliges &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; them to support one another, to live together and to be faithful to one &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; another.&nbsp;&nbsp; Such relationships&nbsp; are&nbsp; of&nbsp; profound&nbsp; significance&nbsp; to&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; individuals concerned. But such relationships have more&nbsp; than&nbsp; personal &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; significance at least in part because human beings&nbsp; are&nbsp; social&nbsp; beings &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whose humanity is expressed through their&nbsp; relationships&nbsp; with&nbsp; others. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Entering into marriage therefore is to enter into a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; that &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; has public significance as well. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The institutions of marriage and the family&nbsp; are&nbsp; important&nbsp; social &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; institutions that provide for the security, support&nbsp; and&nbsp; companionship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of members of our society and bear an important role in the rearing&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; children. The celebration of a marriage gives rise to moral&nbsp; and&nbsp; legal &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; obligations, particularly the reciprocal duty of&nbsp; support&nbsp; placed&nbsp; upon &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; spouses and their&nbsp; joint&nbsp; responsibility&nbsp; for&nbsp; supporting&nbsp; and&nbsp; raising &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; children born of the&nbsp; marriage.&nbsp; These&nbsp; legal&nbsp; obligations&nbsp; perform&nbsp; an &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; important social function. This importance is symbolically acknowledged &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in part by the fact that marriage is celebrated generally in&nbsp; a&nbsp; public &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ceremony, often before family and close friends....&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; 25.&nbsp;&nbsp; South African Constitutional Court in&nbsp; various&nbsp; judgments&nbsp; recognized the above mentioned principle.&nbsp; In Satchwell v. President of&nbsp; the&nbsp; Republic of South Africa and Another 2002 (6) SA 1 (CC),&nbsp; Du&nbsp; Toit&nbsp; and&nbsp; Another&nbsp; v. Minister of Welfare and Population Development and Others (Lesbian and&nbsp; Gay Equality Project as Amicus Curiae) 2003 (2) SA 198 (CC), the Constitutional Court of South Africa recognized the right &ldquo;free&nbsp; to&nbsp; marry&nbsp; and&nbsp; to&nbsp; raise family&rdquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 15(3)(a)(i) of the&nbsp; Constitution&nbsp; of&nbsp; South&nbsp; Africa,&nbsp; in substance makes provision for the recognition of &ldquo;marriages concluded under the tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 9(3) of the Constitution of South Africa reads as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;The State may not unfairly&nbsp; discriminate&nbsp; directly&nbsp; or&nbsp; indirectly &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; against anyone on one or more grounds,&nbsp; including&nbsp; race,&nbsp; gender,&nbsp; sex, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; pregnancy, marital status, ethnic&nbsp; or&nbsp; social&nbsp; origin,&nbsp; colour,&nbsp; sexual &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; orientation, age, disability, religion,&nbsp; conscience,&nbsp; belief,&nbsp; culture, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; language and birth.&rdquo; &nbsp; 26.&nbsp;&nbsp; Article 23 of the&nbsp; International&nbsp; Covenant&nbsp; on&nbsp; Civil&nbsp; and&nbsp; Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) provides that: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of&nbsp; society &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and is entitled to protection by society and the State. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry&nbsp; and&nbsp; to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; found a family shall be recognized. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No marriage shall be entered into&nbsp; without&nbsp; the&nbsp; free&nbsp; and&nbsp; full &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; consent of the intending spouses. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; States Parties to the present Covenant&nbsp; shall&nbsp; take&nbsp; appropriate &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as to marriage, during marriage and at its&nbsp; dissolution.&nbsp;&nbsp; In&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; case of dissolution, provision shall be&nbsp; made&nbsp; for&nbsp; the&nbsp; necessary &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; protection of any children.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; 27.&nbsp;&nbsp; Article 16&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; Universal&nbsp; Declaration&nbsp; of&nbsp; Human&nbsp; Rights,&nbsp; 1948 provides that: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Men and women of full age, without any limitation due&nbsp; to&nbsp; race, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nationality or religion, have the right to marry and&nbsp; to&nbsp; found&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; family.&nbsp; They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage,&nbsp; during &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; marriage and at it dissolution. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Marriage shall be entered into&nbsp; only&nbsp; with&nbsp; the&nbsp; free&nbsp; and&nbsp; full &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; consent of the intending spouses. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of&nbsp; society &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and is entitled to protection by society and the State.&rdquo; &nbsp; 28.&nbsp;&nbsp; Parties in the present case are Hindus by religion and&nbsp; are&nbsp; governed by the Hindu Marriage Act,&nbsp;&nbsp; 1955.&nbsp; The expression &ldquo;marriage&rdquo;,&nbsp; as&nbsp; stated, is not defined under the Hindu Marriage Act,&nbsp; but&nbsp; the&nbsp; &ldquo;conditions&nbsp; for&nbsp; a Hindu marriage&rdquo; are dealt with in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage&nbsp; Act&nbsp; and which reads as under: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage - A marriage may be&nbsp; solemnized &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; between any two hindus, if&nbsp; the&nbsp; following&nbsp; conditions&nbsp; are&nbsp; fulfilled, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; namely:- &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (ii)&nbsp;at the time of the marriage, neither party- &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a)&nbsp;is&nbsp; incapable&nbsp; of&nbsp; giving&nbsp; a&nbsp; valid&nbsp; consent&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; it&nbsp;&nbsp; in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; consequence of unsoundness of mind; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;though&nbsp; capable&nbsp; of&nbsp; giving&nbsp; a&nbsp; valid&nbsp; consent,&nbsp; has&nbsp; been &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; extent as to be unfit for marriage and the&nbsp; procreation&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;children; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c)&nbsp;has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (iii)&nbsp;the bridegroom has completed the age of&nbsp; twenty-&nbsp; one&nbsp; years&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the bride the age of&nbsp; eighteen years at the time of the marriage; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; unless the custom or usage governing each&nbsp; of&nbsp; them&nbsp; permits&nbsp; of&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; marriage between the two; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (v)&nbsp;&nbsp; the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom&nbsp; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; usage governing each of them permits&nbsp; of&nbsp; a&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; between&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; two.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; 29.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the &ldquo;Ceremonies for&nbsp; a Hindu marriage&rdquo; and reads as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. - &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (1)&nbsp;A Hindu marriage may&nbsp; be&nbsp; solemnized&nbsp; in&nbsp; accordance&nbsp; with&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2)&nbsp;Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (that is, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the taking of seven steps&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; bridegroom&nbsp; and&nbsp; the&nbsp; bride &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes&nbsp; complete &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and binding when the seventh step is taken.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; 30.&nbsp;&nbsp; Entering&nbsp; into&nbsp; a&nbsp; marriage,&nbsp; therefore,&nbsp; either&nbsp; through&nbsp; the&nbsp; Hindu Marriage Act or the&nbsp; Special&nbsp; Marriage&nbsp; Act&nbsp; or&nbsp; any&nbsp; other&nbsp; Personal&nbsp; Law, applicable to the parties, is&nbsp; entering&nbsp; into&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; of&nbsp; &ldquo;public significance&rdquo;, since marriage being a social institution, many&nbsp; rights&nbsp; and liabilities flow out of that legal relationship.&nbsp; The concept&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage as a &ldquo;civil right&rdquo; has been recognised&nbsp; by&nbsp; various&nbsp; courts&nbsp; all&nbsp; over&nbsp; the world, for example, Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 US 535 (1942), Perez v. Lippold 198 P.2d 17, 20.1 (1948), Loving v. Virginia 388 US 1 (1967). &nbsp; 31.&nbsp;&nbsp; We have referred to, in extenso, about the concept of&nbsp; &ldquo;marriage&nbsp; and marital relationship&rdquo;&nbsp; to indicate that the law has&nbsp; distinguished&nbsp; between married and unmarried people, which cannot be said to&nbsp; be&nbsp; unfair&nbsp; when&nbsp; we look at the rights and obligations which flow out&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; legally&nbsp; wedded marriage.&nbsp; A married couple has to discharge&nbsp; legally&nbsp; various&nbsp; rights&nbsp; and obligations, unlike the case of persons&nbsp; having&nbsp; live-in&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; or, marriage-like relationship or defacto relationship. &nbsp; 32.&nbsp;&nbsp; Married couples who choose to marry are fully cognizant of&nbsp; the&nbsp; legal obligation which arises by the operation of&nbsp; law&nbsp; on&nbsp; solemnization&nbsp; of&nbsp; the marriage and the rights and duties&nbsp; they&nbsp; owe&nbsp; to&nbsp; their&nbsp; children&nbsp; and&nbsp; the family as a&nbsp; whole,&nbsp; unlike&nbsp; the&nbsp; case&nbsp; of&nbsp; persons&nbsp; entering&nbsp; into&nbsp; live-in relationship.&nbsp;&nbsp; This Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State&nbsp; of&nbsp; Gujarat (2013) 2&nbsp; SCALE&nbsp; 198&nbsp; held&nbsp; that&nbsp; marital&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; means&nbsp; the&nbsp; legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another&nbsp; which&nbsp; include&nbsp; marital obligation to another&nbsp; like&nbsp; companionship,&nbsp; living&nbsp; under&nbsp; the&nbsp; same&nbsp; roof, sexual relation and the exclusive&nbsp; enjoyment&nbsp; of&nbsp; them,&nbsp; to&nbsp; have&nbsp; children, their up-bringing, services in the home, support,&nbsp; affection,&nbsp; love,&nbsp; liking and so on. &nbsp; RELATIONSHIP IN THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE: &nbsp; 33.&nbsp;&nbsp; Modern Indian society&nbsp; through&nbsp; the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; recognizes&nbsp; in&nbsp; reality, various other forms of familial&nbsp; relations,&nbsp; shedding&nbsp; the&nbsp; idea&nbsp; that &nbsp;such relationship can only be through some acceptable modes hitherto&nbsp; understood. Section 2(f), as already indicated, deals with a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; between&nbsp; two persons (of the opposite sex) who live or have lived together&nbsp; in&nbsp; a&nbsp; shared household when they are related by: &nbsp;&nbsp; a)&nbsp; Consanguinity &nbsp;&nbsp; b) Marriage &nbsp;&nbsp; c) Through a relationship in the nature of marriage &nbsp;&nbsp; d) Adoption &nbsp;&nbsp; e) Family members living together as joint family. &nbsp; &nbsp; 34.&nbsp;&nbsp; The definition clause mentions only five categories&nbsp; of&nbsp; relationships which exhausts itself since the expression &ldquo;means&rdquo;, has been used.&nbsp;&nbsp; When&nbsp; a definition clause is defined to &ldquo;mean&rdquo; such&nbsp; and&nbsp; such,&nbsp; the&nbsp; definition&nbsp; is prima facie restrictive and exhaustive.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 2(f)&nbsp; has&nbsp; not&nbsp; used&nbsp; the expression &ldquo;include&rdquo; so as to make the&nbsp; definition&nbsp; exhaustive.&nbsp;&nbsp; It&nbsp; is&nbsp; in that context we have to examine the meaning of the expression&nbsp; &ldquo;relationship in the nature of marriage&rdquo;. &nbsp; &nbsp; 35.&nbsp;&nbsp; We have already dealt with what is &ldquo;marriage&rdquo;, &ldquo;marital&nbsp; relationship&rdquo; and &ldquo;marital obligations&rdquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Let us now examine the&nbsp; meaning&nbsp; and&nbsp; scope&nbsp; of the expression &ldquo;relationship in the nature of marriage&rdquo; which&nbsp; falls&nbsp; within the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act.&nbsp; Our concern in this&nbsp; case&nbsp; is of the third enumerated category that is&nbsp; &ldquo;relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of marriage&rdquo; which means a relationship which has some&nbsp; inherent&nbsp; or&nbsp; essential characteristics of a marriage though&nbsp; not&nbsp; a&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; legally&nbsp; recognized, and, hence, a comparison of both will have&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; resorted,&nbsp; to&nbsp; determine whether the relationship in a given case constitutes the characteristics&nbsp; of a regular marriage. &nbsp; 36.&nbsp;&nbsp; Distinction between the relationship in the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; and marital relationship has to be&nbsp; noted&nbsp; first.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Relationship&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage continues, notwithstanding the fact that there are differences of&nbsp; opinions, marital unrest etc., even if they are not sharing a shared household,&nbsp; being based on law.&nbsp;&nbsp; But live-in-relationship is purely&nbsp; an&nbsp; arrangement&nbsp; between the&nbsp; parties&nbsp; unlike, &nbsp;a&nbsp; legal&nbsp; marriage.&nbsp;&nbsp; Once&nbsp; a&nbsp; party&nbsp; to&nbsp; a&nbsp; live-in- relationship determines that&nbsp; he/she&nbsp; does&nbsp; not&nbsp; wish&nbsp; to&nbsp; live&nbsp; in&nbsp; such&nbsp; a relationship,&nbsp; that&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; comes&nbsp; to&nbsp; an&nbsp;&nbsp; end.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Further,&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp; a relationship in the nature of marriage, the party&nbsp; asserting&nbsp; the&nbsp; existence of the relationship, at any stage or at any point of time,&nbsp; must&nbsp; positively prove&nbsp; the&nbsp; existence&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; identifying&nbsp;&nbsp; characteristics&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; that relationship, since the legislature has used the expression &ldquo;in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature of&rdquo;. &nbsp; &nbsp; 37.&nbsp;&nbsp; Reference to certain situations, in which the relationship between&nbsp; an aggrieved person referred to in Section 2(a) and the respondent referred&nbsp; to in Section 2(q) of the DV Act, would or would not amount to&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship in the nature of marriage, would be apposite.&nbsp; Following&nbsp; are&nbsp; some&nbsp; of&nbsp; the categories of cases which are only illustrative: &nbsp;&nbsp; a)&nbsp; Domestic&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; between&nbsp; an&nbsp; unmarried&nbsp; adult&nbsp; woman&nbsp; and&nbsp; an &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; unmarried adult male:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Relationship between an unmarried adult woman &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and an unmarried adult male who lived or, at any point of&nbsp; time&nbsp; lived &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; together in a shared household, will&nbsp; fall&nbsp; under&nbsp; the&nbsp; definition&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 2(f) of the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; and&nbsp; in&nbsp; case,&nbsp; there&nbsp; is&nbsp; any&nbsp; domestic &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; violence, the same will fall under Section 3 of the&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; and&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; aggrieved person can always seek reliefs provided under Chapter IV&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the DV Act. &nbsp;&nbsp; b) Domestic relationship between an unmarried woman and a&nbsp; married&nbsp; adult &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; male:&nbsp; Situations may arise when an unmarried&nbsp; adult&nbsp; women&nbsp; knowingly &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; enters into a relationship with a married adult male.&nbsp; The question is &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whether such a relationship&nbsp; is&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; &ldquo;in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; marriage&rdquo; so as to fall within the definition of Section 2(f)&nbsp; of&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DV Act. &nbsp;&nbsp; c) Domestic relationship between a married adult woman and&nbsp; an&nbsp; unmarried &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; adult male:&nbsp;&nbsp; Situations may also arise where an adult married&nbsp; woman, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; knowingly enters into a relationship with an unmarried adult male, the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; question&nbsp; is&nbsp; whether&nbsp; such&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; would&nbsp; fall&nbsp; within&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; expression relationship &ldquo;in the nature of marriage&rdquo;. &nbsp;&nbsp; d) Domestic relationship between an unmarried&nbsp; woman&nbsp; unknowingly&nbsp; enters &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; into a relationship with a married adult male:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An&nbsp; unmarried&nbsp; woman &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; unknowingly enters into a relationship with a married adult male, may, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in a given situation, fall within the definition of&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 2(f)&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the DV Act and such a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; may&nbsp; be&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;nature of marriage&rdquo;, so far as the aggrieved person is concerned. &nbsp;&nbsp; e) Domestic relationship between same sex partners &nbsp;(Gay&nbsp; and&nbsp; Lesbians): &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DV Act does not recognize such a relationship&nbsp; and&nbsp; that&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; cannot be termed as a relationship in the nature of marriage under the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Act.&nbsp; Legislatures in some countries,&nbsp; like&nbsp; the&nbsp; Interpretation&nbsp; Act, &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1984 (Western Australia), the Interpretation Act, 1999 (New&nbsp; Zealand), &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (South Africa), the Domestic Violence, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Crime and Victims Act, 2004 (U.K.), have recognized&nbsp; the&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; between the same sex couples and have brought these relationships into &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the definition of Domestic relationship. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 38.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 2(f) of the DV Act though uses the expression&nbsp; &ldquo;two&nbsp; persons&rdquo;, the expression &ldquo;aggrieved person&rdquo; under Section 2(a) takes in only&nbsp; &ldquo;woman&rdquo;, hence, the Act does not recognize the&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; of&nbsp; same&nbsp; sex&nbsp; (gay&nbsp; or lesbian) and, hence, any act, omission, commission or conduct of any of&nbsp; the parties, would not lead to domestic violence,&nbsp; entitling&nbsp; any&nbsp; relief&nbsp; under the DV Act. &nbsp; &nbsp; 39.&nbsp;&nbsp; We should, therefore, while determining&nbsp; whether&nbsp; any&nbsp; act,&nbsp; omission, commission or conduct of the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; constitutes&nbsp; &ldquo;domestic&nbsp; violence&rdquo;, have a&nbsp; common&nbsp; sense/balanced&nbsp; approach,&nbsp; after&nbsp; weighing&nbsp; up&nbsp; the&nbsp; various factors&nbsp; which&nbsp; exist&nbsp; in&nbsp; a&nbsp; particular&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; and&nbsp; then&nbsp; reach&nbsp;&nbsp; a conclusion as to whether a particular relationship is a relationship in&nbsp; the &ldquo;nature of marriage&rdquo;.&nbsp; Many a times, it&nbsp; is&nbsp; the&nbsp; common&nbsp; intention&nbsp; of&nbsp; the parties to that relationship as to what their relationship is to be, and&nbsp; to involve&nbsp; and&nbsp; as&nbsp; to&nbsp; their&nbsp; respective&nbsp; roles&nbsp; and&nbsp; responsibilities,&nbsp; that primarily governs that relationship.&nbsp; Intention may be expressed or&nbsp; implied and&nbsp; what&nbsp; is&nbsp; relevant&nbsp; is&nbsp; their&nbsp; intention&nbsp; as &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; matters&nbsp;&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp; are characteristic of a marriage.&nbsp;&nbsp; The expression &ldquo;relationship in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature of marriage&rdquo;, of course, cannot be construed in the abstract, we&nbsp; must&nbsp; take it in the context in which it appears and apply the&nbsp; same&nbsp; bearing&nbsp; in&nbsp; mind the purpose and object of the Act as well as the meaning of&nbsp; the&nbsp; expression &ldquo;in the nature of marriage&rdquo;.&nbsp; Plight of a vulnerable&nbsp; section&nbsp; of&nbsp; women&nbsp; in that relationship needs&nbsp; attention.&nbsp; Many&nbsp; a&nbsp; times,&nbsp; the&nbsp; women&nbsp; are&nbsp; taken advantage of and essential&nbsp; contribution&nbsp; of&nbsp; women&nbsp; in&nbsp; a&nbsp; joint&nbsp; household through labour and emotional support have been lost sight of&nbsp; especially&nbsp; by the women who fall in&nbsp; the&nbsp; categories&nbsp; mentioned&nbsp; in&nbsp; (a)&nbsp; and&nbsp; (d)&nbsp; supra. Women, who fall under categories (b) and (c), stand on a different&nbsp; footing, which we will deal with later.&nbsp; In the present&nbsp; case,&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; falls under category (b), referred to in paragraph 37(b) of the Judgment. &nbsp; &nbsp; 40.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We&nbsp; have,&nbsp; therefore,&nbsp;&nbsp; come&nbsp;&nbsp; across&nbsp;&nbsp; various&nbsp;&nbsp; permutations&nbsp;&nbsp; and combinations, in such relationships,&nbsp; and&nbsp; to&nbsp; test&nbsp; whether&nbsp; a&nbsp; particular relationship would fall within the expression &ldquo;relationship in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature of marriage&rdquo;, certain guiding principles&nbsp; have&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; evolved&nbsp; since&nbsp; the expression has not been defined in the Act. &nbsp; &nbsp; 41.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 2(f) of the DV Act defines &ldquo;domestic relationship&rdquo;&nbsp; to&nbsp; mean, inter alia, a relationship between two&nbsp; persons&nbsp; who&nbsp; live&nbsp; or&nbsp; have&nbsp; lived together&nbsp; at&nbsp; such&nbsp; point&nbsp; of&nbsp; time&nbsp; in&nbsp; a&nbsp; shared&nbsp; household,&nbsp; through&nbsp;&nbsp; a relationship in the nature of marriage. The expression &ldquo;relationship in the nature of marriage&rdquo; is also described as defacto relationship,&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; &ndash; like&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp;&nbsp; cohabitation,&nbsp;&nbsp; couple&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp;&nbsp; meretricious relationship (now known as committed intimate relationship) etc. &nbsp; &nbsp; 42.&nbsp;&nbsp; Courts and legislatures of various countries now began to think&nbsp; that denying certain benefits to a certain class of&nbsp; persons&nbsp; on&nbsp; the&nbsp; basis&nbsp; of their marital status is unjust where the need of those benefits is felt&nbsp; by both unmarried and married cohabitants.&nbsp; Courts in various&nbsp; countries&nbsp; have extended&nbsp; certain&nbsp;&nbsp; benefits&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; heterosexual&nbsp;&nbsp; unmarried&nbsp;&nbsp; cohabitants. Legislatures too, of late, through legislations started giving benefits&nbsp; to heterosexual cohabitants. &nbsp; 43.&nbsp;&nbsp; In U.K. through the Civil Partnership Act, 2004, the rights&nbsp; of&nbsp; even the same-sex couple have been recognized.&nbsp;&nbsp; Family Law Act,&nbsp; 1996,&nbsp; through the Chapter IV, titled &lsquo;Family Homes and&nbsp; Domestic&nbsp; Violence&rsquo;,&nbsp; cohabitants can seek reliefs if there is domestic violence.&nbsp; Canada&nbsp; has&nbsp; also&nbsp; enacted the Domestic Violence Intervention Act, 2001.&nbsp; In USA, the violence against woman is a crime with far-reaching consequences under the Violence&nbsp; Against Women Act, 1994 (now Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, 2013). &nbsp; 44.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Interpretation&nbsp; Act,&nbsp; 1984&nbsp; (Australia)&nbsp; has&nbsp; laid&nbsp; down&nbsp; certain indicators to determine the meaning of &ldquo;de facto relationship&rdquo;,&nbsp; which&nbsp; are as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;13A . De facto relationship and de facto partner, references to &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (1) A reference in a written law&nbsp; to&nbsp; a&nbsp; de&nbsp; facto&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; shall be construed as a reference to a relationship (other&nbsp; than &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a legal marriage) between 2&nbsp; persons&nbsp; who&nbsp; live&nbsp; together&nbsp; in&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; marriage-like relationship. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2) The following factors are indicators of whether or not a&nbsp; de &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; facto&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; exists&nbsp; between&nbsp; 2&nbsp; persons,&nbsp; but&nbsp; are&nbsp; not &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; essential&nbsp;&mdash; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a) the length of the relationship between them; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp; &nbsp; whether the 2 persons have resided together; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c) &nbsp; the nature and extent of common residence; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (d) &nbsp; whether there is, or has been,&nbsp; a&nbsp; sexual&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; between them; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (e) the degree of financial&nbsp; dependence&nbsp; or&nbsp; interdependence, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and any arrangements for financial support, between them; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (f) &nbsp;the ownership, use and&nbsp; acquisition&nbsp; of&nbsp; their&nbsp; property &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (including property they own individually); &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (g)&nbsp; the degree of mutual commitment&nbsp; by&nbsp; them&nbsp; to&nbsp; a&nbsp; shared &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; life; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (h) &nbsp;whether they care for and support children; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (i) &nbsp;the reputation, and public aspects, of the&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; between them. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; 45.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Domestic and Family Violence&nbsp; Protection&nbsp; Act,&nbsp; 2012&nbsp; (Queensland) has defined the expression &ldquo;couple relationship&rdquo; to mean as follows&rdquo;: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;18. Meaning of couple relationship &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; xxx &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2) In deciding whether a couple relationship exists, a court may &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; have regard to the following &ndash; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a)&nbsp; the&nbsp; circumstances&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; between&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; persons, including, for example&ndash; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the degree of trust between the persons; and &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (ii) the level of each&nbsp; person&rsquo;s&nbsp; dependence&nbsp; on,&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; commitment to, the other person; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; b) the length&nbsp; of&nbsp; time&nbsp; for&nbsp; which&nbsp; the&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; has &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; existed or did exist; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; c) the frequency of contact between the persons; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; d) the degree of intimacy between the persons. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3)&nbsp; Without limiting sub-section (2), the court may consider the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; following factors in deciding whether a&nbsp; couple&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;exists- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a) Whether the trust, dependence or commitment is&nbsp; or&nbsp; was &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of the same level; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; b) Whether one&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; persons&nbsp; is&nbsp; or&nbsp; was&nbsp; financially &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; dependent on the other; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; c) Whether the persons jointly own or owned any property; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; d) Whether the persons have or had joint bank accounts; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; e)&nbsp; Whether&nbsp; the&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; involves&nbsp; or&nbsp; involved&nbsp;&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship of a sexual nature; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; f) Whether the relationship is or was exclusive. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 4) A couple relationship may exist even if&nbsp; the&nbsp; court&nbsp; makes&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; negative finding in relation to any or&nbsp; all&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; factors &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; mentioned in subsection (3). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5) A couple relationship may exist between two&nbsp; persons&nbsp; whether &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the persons are of the same or a different gender. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 6) A couple relationship&nbsp; does&nbsp; not&nbsp; exist&nbsp; merely&nbsp; because&nbsp; two &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;persons date or dated each other on a number of occasions.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 46.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; Property&nbsp; (Relationships)&nbsp; Act,&nbsp; 1984&nbsp; of&nbsp; North&nbsp; South&nbsp; Wales, Australia also provides for some guidelines with regard to the meaning&nbsp; and content of the expression &ldquo;de facto relationship&rdquo;, which reads as follows: &nbsp; 1 &ldquo;4 De facto relationships &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (1) For the purposes of&nbsp; this&nbsp; Act,&nbsp; a&nbsp; de&nbsp; facto&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; is&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship between two adult persons: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a)&nbsp; who live together as a couple, and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b) who are not married to one another or related by family. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2) In determining whether two persons are in a de facto relationship, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; all the circumstances&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; are&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; taken&nbsp; into &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; account, including such of the following matters as may be relevant in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a particular case: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a)&nbsp; the duration of the relationship, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b) the nature and extent of common residence, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c)&nbsp; whether or not a sexual relationship exists, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (d) the degree of financial dependence or&nbsp; interdependence,&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any arrangements for financial support, between the parties, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (e)&nbsp; the ownership, use and acquisition of property, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (f)&nbsp;&nbsp; the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (g)&nbsp; the care and support of children, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (h)&nbsp; the performance of household duties, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (i) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (3) No&nbsp; finding&nbsp; in&nbsp; respect&nbsp; of&nbsp; any&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; matters&nbsp; mentioned&nbsp; in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; subsection (2) (a)-(i), or in respect of any combination of&nbsp; them,&nbsp; is &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; regarded&nbsp; as&nbsp; necessary&nbsp; for&nbsp; the&nbsp; existence&nbsp; of&nbsp; a&nbsp; de&nbsp; facto &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship, and a court&nbsp; determining&nbsp; whether&nbsp; such&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; exists is entitled to have regard to such matters, and to attach&nbsp; such &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; weight to any matter, as may seem appropriate&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; court&nbsp; in&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; circumstances of the case. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (4) Except as provided by section 6, a reference&nbsp; in&nbsp; this&nbsp; Act&nbsp; to&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; party to a de facto relationship includes a reference to a person who, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whether before or after the commencement of&nbsp; this&nbsp; subsection,&nbsp; was&nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; party to such a relationship.&rdquo; &nbsp; 47.&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;In Re Marriage of Lindsay, 101 Wn.2d 299 (1984), Litham v.&nbsp; Hennessey 87 Wn.2d 550 (1976), Pennington 93 Wash.App. at 917, the&nbsp; Courts&nbsp; in&nbsp; United States took the view that the relevant factors establishing&nbsp; a&nbsp; meretricious relationship include continuous cohabitation, duration of the&nbsp; relationship, purpose of the relationship, and the pooling of resources and&nbsp; services&nbsp; for joint projects.&nbsp; The Courts also ruled&nbsp; that&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; need&nbsp; not&nbsp; be &ldquo;long term&rdquo; to be characterized as&nbsp; meretricious&nbsp; relationship.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; While&nbsp; a long term relationship&nbsp; is&nbsp; not&nbsp; a&nbsp; threshold&nbsp; requirement,&nbsp; duration&nbsp; is&nbsp; a significant factor.&nbsp; Further, the Court&nbsp; also&nbsp; noticed&nbsp; that&nbsp; a&nbsp; short&nbsp; term relationship may be characterized as a meretricious, but a number&nbsp; of&nbsp; other important factors must be present. &nbsp; 48.&nbsp;&nbsp; In Stack v. Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, Baroness Hale of Richmond said: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;Cohabitation comes&nbsp; in&nbsp; many&nbsp; different&nbsp; shapes&nbsp; and&nbsp; sizes.&nbsp;&nbsp; People &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; embarking on their first serious relationship&nbsp; more&nbsp; commonly&nbsp; cohabit &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; than marry.&nbsp; Many of these relationships may be quite short-lived&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; childless.&nbsp; But most people these days cohabit before marriage&hellip;..&nbsp;&nbsp; So &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; many couples are cohabiting with a view to marriage at some later date &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&ndash; as long ago as 1998 the British Household Panel&nbsp; Survey&nbsp; found&nbsp; that &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 75% of current cohabitants expected to marry, although&nbsp; only&nbsp; a&nbsp; third &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had firm plans:&nbsp; John Ermisch,&nbsp; Personal&nbsp; Relationships&nbsp; and&nbsp; Marriage &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Expectations (2000) Working Papers of&nbsp; the&nbsp; Institute&nbsp; of&nbsp; Social&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Economic Research:&nbsp; Paper 2000-27.&nbsp;&nbsp; Cohabitation is much more&nbsp; likely &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to end in separation than is marriage, and cohabitations which end&nbsp; in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; separation tend to last for a shorter time than marriages which end in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; divorce.&nbsp;&nbsp; But increasing numbers of couples cohabit for long&nbsp; periods &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; without marrying and their reasons for doing so&nbsp; vary&nbsp; from&nbsp; conscious &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; rejection of marriage as a legal institution to&nbsp; regarding&nbsp; themselves &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &lsquo;as good as married&rsquo; anyway:&nbsp; Law Commission,&nbsp; Consultation&nbsp; Paper&nbsp; No &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 179, Part 2, para 2.45.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; 49.&nbsp;&nbsp; In MW v. The Department of Community Services [2008] HCA 12, Gleeson, CJ, made the following observations: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;Finn J was correct to stress the difference between&nbsp; living&nbsp; together &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and living together &lsquo;as a couple in a relationship in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; marriage or civil union&rsquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The relationship between two&nbsp; people&nbsp; who &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; live together, even though it is a sexual relationship,&nbsp; may,&nbsp; or&nbsp; may &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not, be a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union.&nbsp;&nbsp; One &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; consequence of relationships of the former kind&nbsp; becoming&nbsp; commonplace &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; is that it may now be more difficult, rather&nbsp; than&nbsp; easier,&nbsp; to&nbsp; infer &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that they have the nature of marriage or civil union, at&nbsp; least&nbsp; where &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the care and upbringing of children are not involved.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 50.&nbsp;&nbsp; In Lynam v. The Director-General of Social&nbsp; Security&nbsp; (1983)&nbsp; 52&nbsp; ALR 128, the Court considered whether a man and a&nbsp; woman&nbsp; living&nbsp; together&nbsp; &lsquo;as husband and wife on a bona fide domestic basis&rsquo; and Fitzgerald, J. said: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;Each element of a relationship draws its colour and its&nbsp; significance &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from the other elements, some of which may point in one direction&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; some in the other.&nbsp;&nbsp; What must be looked at is the composite&nbsp; picture. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any attempt to isolate individual factors and to&nbsp; attribute&nbsp; to&nbsp; them &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relative degrees of materiality or importance&nbsp; involves&nbsp; a&nbsp; denial&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; common experience and will almost inevitably be productive&nbsp; of&nbsp; error. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The endless scope for differences in human&nbsp; attitudes&nbsp; and&nbsp; activities &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; means that there will be an almost infinite variety of combinations of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; circumstances which may fall for&nbsp; consideration.&nbsp;&nbsp; In&nbsp; any&nbsp; particular &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; case, it will be a question of&nbsp; fact&nbsp; and&nbsp; degree,&nbsp; a&nbsp; jury&nbsp; question, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whether a relationship between two unrelated persons of&nbsp; the&nbsp; opposite &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; sex meets the statutory test.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 51.&nbsp;&nbsp; Tipping, J. in Thompson v. Department of Social Welfare (1994) 2&nbsp; SZLR 369 (HC),&nbsp; listed&nbsp; few&nbsp; characteristics&nbsp; which&nbsp; are&nbsp; relevant&nbsp; to&nbsp; determine relationship in the nature of marriage as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;(1)&nbsp; Whether and how frequently the parties live in the same house. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the parties have a sexual relationship. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (3)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the&nbsp; parties&nbsp; give&nbsp; each&nbsp; other&nbsp; emotional&nbsp; support&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; companionship. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (4)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the parties&nbsp; socialize&nbsp; together&nbsp; or&nbsp; attend&nbsp; activities &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; together as a couple. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (5)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether and to what extent the parties share the&nbsp; responsibility &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for bringing up and supporting any relevant children. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(6)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the parties share household and other domestic tasks. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (7)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether&nbsp; the&nbsp; parties&nbsp;&nbsp; share&nbsp;&nbsp; costs&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; other&nbsp;&nbsp; financial &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; responsibilities by the pooling of resources or otherwise. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (8)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the parties run a common household, even if one or other &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; partner is absent for periods of time. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (9)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the parties go on holiday together. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (10)&nbsp; Whether the parties conduct themselves towards, and are&nbsp; treated &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; by friends, relations and others&nbsp; as&nbsp; if&nbsp; they&nbsp; were&nbsp; a&nbsp; married &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; couple.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 52.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Live-in&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; as&nbsp; such,&nbsp; as&nbsp; already&nbsp;&nbsp; indicated,&nbsp;&nbsp; is&nbsp;&nbsp; a relationship which has not been socially accepted&nbsp; in&nbsp; India,&nbsp; unlike&nbsp; many other countries.&nbsp; In Lata Singh v. State of U.P.&nbsp; [AIR 2006 SC 2522] it was observed that a live-in&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; between&nbsp; two&nbsp; consenting&nbsp; adults&nbsp; of heterosexual sex does not amount to any&nbsp; offence&nbsp; even&nbsp; though&nbsp; it&nbsp; may&nbsp; be perceived as immoral. However, in order to provide a remedy&nbsp; in&nbsp; Civil&nbsp; Law for protection of women, from being victims of such&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; and&nbsp; to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society, first&nbsp; time&nbsp; in India, the DV Act has been enacted to cover the couple having&nbsp; relationship in the nature of marriage, persons related by consanguinity, marriages etc. &nbsp;We have few other legislations also where reliefs have&nbsp; been&nbsp; provided&nbsp; to woman placed in certain vulnerable situations. &nbsp; &nbsp; 53.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 125&nbsp; Cr.P.C.,&nbsp; of&nbsp; course,&nbsp; provides&nbsp; for&nbsp; maintenance&nbsp; of&nbsp; a destitute wife and Section 498A IPC is related to mental cruelty&nbsp; inflicted on women by her husband and in-laws.&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 304-B&nbsp; IPC&nbsp; deals&nbsp; with&nbsp; the cases relating to dowry death.&nbsp; The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted to deal with the cases of dowry demands by the husband and family&nbsp; members. &nbsp;The Hindu Adoptions and&nbsp; Maintenance&nbsp; Act,&nbsp; 1956&nbsp; provides&nbsp; for&nbsp; grant&nbsp; of maintenance to a legally wedded Hindu wife, and also deals with&nbsp; rules&nbsp; for adoption.&nbsp; The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 refers to&nbsp; the&nbsp; provisions&nbsp; dealing with solemnization of marriage also deals with the provisions for&nbsp; divorce. &nbsp; For the first time, through, the DV Act, the Parliament has recognized&nbsp; a &ldquo;relationship in the nature of marriage&rdquo; and&nbsp; not&nbsp; a&nbsp; live-in&nbsp; relationship simplicitor. &nbsp; 54.&nbsp;&nbsp; We have already stated, when we examine whether a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; will fall within the expression &ldquo;relationship in the nature of marriage&rdquo;&nbsp; within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, we should have a close&nbsp; analysis of the entire relationship, in other words, all facets of the interpersonal relationship need to be taken into account.&nbsp; We cannot&nbsp; isolate&nbsp; individual factors, because there may&nbsp; be&nbsp; endless&nbsp; scope&nbsp; for&nbsp; differences&nbsp; in&nbsp; human attitudes and activities and a variety&nbsp; of&nbsp; combinations&nbsp; of&nbsp; circumstances which may fall for consideration. Invariably, it may be a question of&nbsp; fact and degree, whether a relationship between two&nbsp; unrelated&nbsp; persons&nbsp; of&nbsp; the opposite sex meets the tests judicially evolved. &nbsp; 55.&nbsp;&nbsp; We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some guidelines for testing under what&nbsp; circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall&nbsp; within the expression &ldquo;relationship in the nature of marriage&rdquo; under&nbsp; Section 2(f) of the DV Act.&nbsp; The guidelines, of course, are&nbsp; not&nbsp; exhaustive,&nbsp; but&nbsp; will definitely give some insight to such relationships. 1) Duration of period of relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression &ldquo;at any&nbsp; point&nbsp; of &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; time&rdquo;, which means a&nbsp; reasonable&nbsp; period&nbsp; of&nbsp; time&nbsp; to&nbsp; maintain&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; continue a relationship which may vary from case to&nbsp; case,&nbsp; depending &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; upon the fact situation. (2)&nbsp;&nbsp; Shared household &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; hence, need no further elaboration. (3)&nbsp;&nbsp; Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing&nbsp; bank &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint&nbsp; names&nbsp; or&nbsp; in&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; name of the woman, long&nbsp; term&nbsp; investments&nbsp; in&nbsp; business,&nbsp; shares&nbsp; in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; may be a guiding factor. (4)&nbsp;&nbsp; Domestic Arrangements &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the&nbsp; woman&nbsp; to&nbsp; run&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or upkeeping the house, etc. is an indication of&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the nature of marriage. (5)&nbsp;&nbsp; Sexual Relationship &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Marriage like relationship refers to sexual&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; not&nbsp; just &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for pleasure,&nbsp; but&nbsp; for&nbsp; emotional&nbsp; and&nbsp; intimate&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; for &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; procreation&nbsp; of&nbsp; children,&nbsp; so&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; give&nbsp;&nbsp; emotional&nbsp;&nbsp; support, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; companionship and also material affection, caring etc. (6)&nbsp;&nbsp; Children &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Having children is a strong&nbsp; indication&nbsp; of&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nature of marriage.&nbsp;&nbsp; Parties,&nbsp; therefore,&nbsp; intend&nbsp; to&nbsp; have&nbsp; a&nbsp; long &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; standing relationship.&nbsp; Sharing the responsibility&nbsp; for&nbsp; bringing&nbsp; up &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and supporting them is also a strong indication. (7)&nbsp;&nbsp; Socialization in Public &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong&nbsp; circumstance&nbsp; to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage. (8)&nbsp;&nbsp; Intention and conduct of the parties &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Common intention of parties as to what their relationship&nbsp; is&nbsp; to&nbsp; be &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; involve,&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; their&nbsp;&nbsp; respective&nbsp;&nbsp; roles&nbsp;&nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; responsibilities,&nbsp;&nbsp; primarily&nbsp;&nbsp; determines&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; nature&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; that &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relationship. &nbsp; STATUS OF THE APPELLANT &nbsp; 56.&nbsp;&nbsp; Appellant, admittedly, entered into a live-in-relationship&nbsp; with&nbsp; the respondent knowing that he was married person, with wife and two&nbsp; children, hence,&nbsp; the&nbsp; generic&nbsp; proposition&nbsp; laid&nbsp; down&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; Privy&nbsp; Council&nbsp;&nbsp; in Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wiketunge Liyanapatabendage Balshamy,&nbsp; AIR&nbsp; 1927 PC 185,&nbsp;&nbsp; that where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the&nbsp; law&nbsp; presumes&nbsp; that&nbsp; they&nbsp; are&nbsp; living&nbsp; together&nbsp; in consequence of a valid marriage will not apply and, hence, the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was&nbsp; not&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the nature of a marriage, and the&nbsp; status&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; was&nbsp; that&nbsp; of&nbsp; a concubine. A concubine cannot maintain a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of marriage because such a relationship will not have exclusivity and will not be monogamous in character.&nbsp; Reference may also be made to the judgments of this Court in Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation 1978&nbsp; (3)&nbsp; SCC&nbsp; 527 and Tulsa v. Durghatiya 2008 (4) SCC 520.&nbsp; In Gokal Chand v. Parvin&nbsp; Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231 this Court held that the continuous cohabitation of man and woman as husband and wife may raise the presumption of&nbsp; marriage,&nbsp; but&nbsp; the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabition is a rebuttable one and if there are circumstances which weaken and destroy that&nbsp; presumption,&nbsp; the Court cannot ignore them.&nbsp; Polygamy, that is a relationship or practice&nbsp; of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while&nbsp; already&nbsp; married to another and/or maintaining an adulterous&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; that&nbsp; is&nbsp; having voluntary sexual intercourse between a married&nbsp; person&nbsp; who&nbsp; is&nbsp; not&nbsp; one&rsquo;s husband or wife, cannot be said to be&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of marriage. &nbsp; 57.&nbsp;&nbsp; We may note, in the instant case, there is no necessity to rebut&nbsp; the presumption, since the appellant&nbsp; was&nbsp; aware&nbsp; that&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; was&nbsp; a married person even before the commencement of&nbsp; their&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; hence the status of the appellant is that of&nbsp; a&nbsp; concubine&nbsp; or&nbsp; a&nbsp; mistress,&nbsp; who cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage.&nbsp; Long&nbsp; standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature&nbsp; of&nbsp; a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because&nbsp; that&nbsp; woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that&nbsp; DV&nbsp; Act&nbsp; does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is&nbsp; restrictive&nbsp; and exhaustive. &nbsp; &nbsp; 58.&nbsp;&nbsp; Velusamy case (supra) stated that instances are&nbsp; many&nbsp; where&nbsp; married person maintain and support such types of women, either for sexual pleasure or sometimes for emotional support.&nbsp; Woman, a party&nbsp; to&nbsp; that&nbsp; relationship does suffer social disadvantages and prejudices, and historically,&nbsp; such&nbsp; a person has been regarded as less worthy than the married woman.&nbsp;&nbsp; Concubine suffers social ostracism through the denial of&nbsp; status&nbsp; and&nbsp; benefits,&nbsp; who cannot, of course, enter into a relationship in the nature of marriage. &nbsp; &nbsp; 59.&nbsp;&nbsp; We cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that inequities&nbsp; do&nbsp; exist in such relationships and on breaking down&nbsp; such&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; the&nbsp; woman invariably is the sufferer.&nbsp; Law of Constructive Trust developed as a means of recognizing the contributions, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, perhaps comes to their aid in such situations, which may remain as a&nbsp; recourse&nbsp; for such a woman who find herself unfairly disadvantaged.&nbsp; Unfortunately, there is no express&nbsp; statutory&nbsp; provision&nbsp; to&nbsp; regulate&nbsp; such&nbsp; types&nbsp; of&nbsp; live-in relationships upon termination or disruption since those relationships&nbsp; are not in the nature of marriage.&nbsp; We can also come&nbsp; across&nbsp; situations&nbsp; where the parties entering into&nbsp; live-in-relationship&nbsp; and&nbsp; due&nbsp; to&nbsp; their&nbsp; joint efforts or otherwise acquiring&nbsp; properties,&nbsp; rearing&nbsp; children,&nbsp; etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; and disputes may also arise when one of the parties dies intestate. &nbsp; &nbsp; 60.&nbsp;&nbsp; American Jurisprudence, Second Edition,&nbsp; Vol.&nbsp; 24&nbsp; (2008)&nbsp; speaks&nbsp; of Rights and Remedies&nbsp; of&nbsp; property&nbsp; accumulated&nbsp; by&nbsp; man&nbsp; and&nbsp; woman&nbsp; living together in illicit relations or under void marriage, which reads as under: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;Although the courts have recognized the property&nbsp; rights&nbsp; of&nbsp; persons &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; cohabiting without benefit of marriage, these rights are not based&nbsp; on &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the equitable distribution provisions of the marriage and divorce laws &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; because the judicial recognition of&nbsp; mutual&nbsp; property&nbsp; rights&nbsp; between &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; unmarried cohabitants&nbsp; would&nbsp; violate&nbsp; the&nbsp; policy&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; state&nbsp; to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; strengthen and preserve the integrity of marriage, as demonstrated&nbsp; by &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; its abolition of common-law marriage.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 61.&nbsp;&nbsp; Such relationship, it may be noted, may endure for a&nbsp; long&nbsp; time&nbsp; and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and&nbsp; increasing&nbsp; number of&nbsp; such&nbsp; relationships,&nbsp; calls&nbsp; for&nbsp; adequate&nbsp; and&nbsp; effective&nbsp; protection, especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship. &nbsp;Legislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital sex, though, at&nbsp; times, such relationships are intensively personal and people&nbsp; may&nbsp; express&nbsp; their opinion, for and against.&nbsp; See S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and another (2010) 5 SCC 600. &nbsp; 62.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Parliament&nbsp; has&nbsp; to&nbsp; ponder&nbsp; over&nbsp; these&nbsp; issues,&nbsp; bring&nbsp; in&nbsp; proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that&nbsp; women&nbsp; and&nbsp; the children, born out of such kinds&nbsp; of&nbsp; relationships&nbsp; be&nbsp; protected,&nbsp; though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of&nbsp; a marriage. &nbsp; &nbsp; 63.&nbsp;&nbsp; We may now consider whether the tests, we have laid down,&nbsp; have&nbsp; been satisfied in the instant case.&nbsp; We have found that the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; was&nbsp; not ignorant of the fact that the respondent was a married person with wife and two children, hence, was party to an adulterous and bigamous&nbsp; relationship. Admittedly, the relationship&nbsp; between&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; and&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; was opposed by the wife of the respondent,&nbsp; so&nbsp; also&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; parents&nbsp; of&nbsp; the appellant and her brother and sister and they knew that they could not have entered into a legal marriage or maintained a relationship in the nature of marriage.&nbsp;&nbsp; Parties never entertained any intention to rear children and on three occasions the pregnancy was terminated.&nbsp; Having children is a&nbsp; strong circumstance to indicate a relationship&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage.&nbsp; No evidence has been adduced to show that the parties gave each&nbsp; other&nbsp; mutual support and companionship.&nbsp;&nbsp; No material has been produced to show that the parties have ever projected or conducted themselves as husband and wife and treated by friends, relatives and others, as if they are a married&nbsp; couple. On the other hand, it is the&nbsp; specific&nbsp; case&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; that&nbsp; the respondent had never held out to the public that she&nbsp; was&nbsp; his&nbsp; wife.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No evidence of socialization in public has been produced.&nbsp; There is nothing to show that there was pooling of resources or financial arrangements&nbsp; between them.&nbsp; On the other hand, it is the specific case of the appellant that the respondent had never opened any joint account or executed any&nbsp; document&nbsp; in the joint name.&nbsp; Further, it was also submitted that the&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; never permitted to suffix his name after the name of the appellant.&nbsp; No&nbsp; evidence is forthcoming, in this case, to show that the respondent&nbsp; had&nbsp; caused&nbsp; any harm or injuries or endangered the health,&nbsp; safely,&nbsp; life,&nbsp; limb&nbsp; or&nbsp; well- being, or caused any physical or sexual abuse on the appellant, except that he did not maintain her or continued with the relationship. &nbsp; ALIENATION OF AFFECTION &nbsp; 64.&nbsp;&nbsp; Appellant had entered into this relationship knowing&nbsp; well&nbsp; that&nbsp; the respondent was a married person and encouraged&nbsp; bigamous&nbsp; relationship.&nbsp; By entering&nbsp; into&nbsp; such&nbsp; a&nbsp; relationship,&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; has&nbsp; committed&nbsp;&nbsp; an intentional tort,&nbsp; i.e.&nbsp; interference&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; marital&nbsp; relationship&nbsp; with intentionally alienating respondent from his&nbsp; family,&nbsp; i.e.&nbsp; his&nbsp; wife&nbsp; and children.&nbsp; If the case set up by the appellant&nbsp; is&nbsp; accepted,&nbsp; we&nbsp; have&nbsp; to conclude that there has been an attempt on the part&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; to alienate&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; from&nbsp; his&nbsp; family,&nbsp; resulting&nbsp; in&nbsp; loss&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; marital relationship, companionship, assistance, loss of consortium etc., so far as the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent are&nbsp; concerned,&nbsp; who resisted the relationship from the very inception.&nbsp; Marriage and family are social institutions of vital importance.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alienation of affection, in that context, is&nbsp; an&nbsp; intentional&nbsp; tort,&nbsp; as&nbsp; held&nbsp; by&nbsp; this&nbsp; Court&nbsp; in&nbsp; Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal case (supra), which gives a cause of action&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; wife and children of the respondent to sue&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; for&nbsp; alienating&nbsp; the husband/father from the company of his wife/children,&nbsp; knowing&nbsp; fully&nbsp; well they are legally wedded wife/children of the respondent.. &nbsp; &nbsp; 65.&nbsp;&nbsp; We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant, having been&nbsp; fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not&nbsp; have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage.&nbsp; All live-in- relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage.&nbsp; Appellant&rsquo;s and the respondent&rsquo;s relationship is, therefore, not a &ldquo;relationship in the nature of marriage&rdquo; because it has no inherent or essential&nbsp; characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than &ldquo;in the&nbsp; nature&nbsp; of&nbsp; marriage&rdquo; and the appellant&rsquo;s status is lower than the status&nbsp; of&nbsp; a&nbsp; wife&nbsp; and&nbsp; that relationship&nbsp; would&nbsp; not&nbsp; fall&nbsp;&nbsp; within&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; definition&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;domestic relationship&rdquo; under Section 2(f) of the DV&nbsp; Act.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If&nbsp; we&nbsp; hold&nbsp; that&nbsp; the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship&nbsp; in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing&nbsp; an&nbsp; injustice&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship.&nbsp; Consequently,&nbsp; any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to&nbsp; &ldquo;domestic&nbsp; violence&rdquo;&nbsp; under Section 3 of the DV Act. &nbsp; &nbsp; 66.&nbsp;&nbsp; We have, on facts, found that the appellant&rsquo;s status was&nbsp; that&nbsp; of&nbsp; a mistress, who is in distress, a survivor of a live-in relationship which is of serious concern, especially when such persons are poor&nbsp; and&nbsp; illiterate, in the event of which vulnerability is more pronounced, which is a societal reality.&nbsp; Children born out of such relationship&nbsp; also&nbsp; suffer&nbsp; most&nbsp; which calls for bringing in remedial measures by the Parliament,&nbsp; through&nbsp; proper legislation. &nbsp; 67.&nbsp;&nbsp; We are conscious of the fact that if any direction is&nbsp; given&nbsp; to&nbsp; the respondent to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to&nbsp; the&nbsp; appellant, that would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and&nbsp; children&nbsp; of&nbsp; the respondent, especially when they had opposed that relationship and&nbsp; have&nbsp; a cause of action against the appellant for alienating the companionship&nbsp; and affection of the husband/parent which is an intentional tort. &nbsp; &nbsp; 68.&nbsp;&nbsp; We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment&nbsp; of&nbsp; the High Court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;.&hellip;&hellip;J. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (K.S. Radhakrishnan) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;J. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(Pinaki Chandra Ghose) New Delhi November 26, 2013

📄 Full Judgment

PDF content is currently unavailable for this record.

← Back to All Cases