To understand the question posed by the author, we have to see the definitions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to find out whether she is entitled to the reliefs laid down in the Act.
(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
3. Definition of domestic violence
-For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it -
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, s*xual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.-For the purposes of this section,-
(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) "s*xual abuse" includes any conduct of a s*xual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes-
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.
(iv) "economic abuse" includes-
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II.
-For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission,
commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.
After going through the post of the author, it comes out that she was in domestic relationship with the man as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act and she was subjected to domestic violence as defined in Section 3 of the Act and she is an aggrieved person as defined in Sectin 2(a) of the Act.
Hence, such person is entitled to all the reliefs laid down in the Act.
Now, the questions arises as some member mentioned above that SC has laid down the rule that who could be in "live-in-relationship". In one of the judgments SC held that the persons of opposite s*x, otherwise elegible to marry each other, can have live-in relationship. This is inclusive statement and not exclusive one. This statement does not exclude the live-in relationships of other kind. Take a case - The persons within the prohibited relationship as defined in Hindu Marriage Act may have live-in relationship. They are not entitled to marry as per their personal law. If the woman, in such live-in relationship is subjected to domestic violence, in my opinion, has got relief in the Act, 2005. Similarly, the relationship between the author and her boy friend was in the nature of marriage. They are not entitled to marry as per the HMA as he has already living spouse. If the author is subjected to domestic violence as defined in Section 3 of the Act, she can move an application under Section 12 of the Act and she will get the relief. If any woman has got children out of the live-in relationship and he dies intestate, the children will have inheritancy rights from his self acquired property same as to his step brothers and sisters. If these children should acquire rights even in ancestral properties is under consideration of hon'ble Supreme Court.
So,
1. The relationship in live-in relationship between the man and the woman is illegal or immoral is irrelevant consideration to decide the rights of the woman in live-in relationship under the DV Act,2005.
2. Whether the man has already married is also irrelevant to grant the rights to the woman in live-in relationship.
3. Whether the relationship between the man and woman comes within prohibited relationship disentitling them to marry is also irrelevant to grant the rights to the woman in live-in relationship.
