Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2009 OF 2013)
Judgement Dated: 26th November, 2013
Coram : K.S. Radhakrishnan .J & Pinaki Chandra Ghose.J
Subject: “All live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage.”
Facts: The Appellant entered into a live-in-relationship with the respondent in the year 1992 knowing that he was married person having wife and two children. The Respondent’s family member opposes the same but the appellant did not paid heed to them and continued to stay at the respondent’s residence. The Appellant later filed case seeking for maintenance from the respondent.
Issue Involved:
1) Whether a “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f)[1] of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Observation:
The Judge stated that “relationship in the nature of marriage” means a relationship which has some inherent or essential characteristics of a marriage though not a marriage legally recognized.
The judge also drew out a Distinction between the Relationship in the nature of marriage and Marital Relationship:
· Relationship of marriage continues, notwithstanding the fact that there are differences of opinions, marital unrest etc., even if they are not sharing a shared household, being based on law. But live-in relationship is purely an arrangement between the parties unlike, a legal marriage. Once a party to a live in- relationship determines that he/she does not wish to live in such a relationship, that relationship comes to an end.
· In a relationship in the nature of marriage, the party asserting the existence of the relationship, at any stage or at any point of time, must positively prove the existence of the identifying characteristics of that relationship, since the legislature has used the expression “in the nature of”.
The Court finally held that the appellant was aware that the respondent was a married person even before the commencement of their relationship, hence the status of the appellant is that of a concubine or a mistress, who cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage.
INFERENCE
The Division Bench of Supreme Court vehemently stated that Live-in-relationship is neither sin nor crime. The Apex court rightly decided the issues of societal concern. The issue raised in the matter is a burning topic at the moment. It is to be noticed that still among various section of society Live-in-relationship is treated as an evil practice and hence, the apex court with their logic and prudent approach tried to draw a line between the marital status and Live-in-relationship of the two person.
To some extent, the judgement has reflected the sign of positivity for live-in-relationship but at the same time made the society aware about the normal problem that may strike in continuance of live-in-relationship.
In the present matter, though the appellant could not succeed in establishing her case but had there been any procreation of children, the matter would have taken a U-turn. Hence, The apex court apart from basic ingredient that are performed for maintaining domestic relationship also took concern of the children while delivering the judgement.
According to my opinion, the present judgement has not done complete justice to the appellant.
1. The apex court has left no stone un-turn in alleging the appellant as concubine. As, the apex court identified her as concubine, it was the responsibility of the court to reflect upon the rights and liabilities of a concubine under such circumstances. Even, Concubines are the part of society who earns their livelihood by sacrificing their flesh repeatedly to the same person.
2. One important aspect which is completely indigestible is that the Apex Court has completely ignored the liability of the respondent. It was the respondent who entered into a bigamous relationship for continuous long period. He also enjoyed the companionship of appellant for more than a decade. These were the matters which were needed to be taken into consideration.
[1] "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
