Delhi HC: Order To Pay Maintenance To Alleged Living Partner Under DV Act Upheld

Facts of the case

• In the case of Parveen Tandon vs. Tanika Tandon, the Respondent-woman claimed that the Petitioner did not disclose his marital status when they first met. She also stated the petitioner executed a marriage agreement with her to show genuineness and responsibility towards her and her child from the previous marriage.
• Later on, the Petitioner told the Respondent that his wife is on dialysis and wouldn’t survive for long and that he was in search of a life partner.
• The Respondent also submitted that the petitioner found them accommodation on a rental basis and both of them were living as husband and wife. She also claimed that the petitioner’s name was shown as the father of her child in school records and was also named as a nominee in her bank accounts.
• The Respondent prayed that given the differences between her and her partner, directions should be passed restraining the petitioner from evicting her from the rental place and pay her interim maintenance.
• The Petitioner challenged the maintainability of proceedings under DV Act. He claimed that the Respondent already knew about his marriage and hence she cannot claim relief under the DV Act as the question of relationship in nature of marriage u/s 2(f) doesn’t arise.

Findings of the Court

• Delhi High Court Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that whether the parties were living in a shared household and enjoying a domestic relationship like marriage could not be decided without leading evidence.
• The Court considered the marriage agreement placed on record by the Respondent-woman which stated that the parties had entered in such an agreement in the year 2012 and intended to marry each other.
• The court noted that the agreement stated that the petitioner had undertaken to discharge obligations towards the petitioner and both the parties had signed the affidavits.
• There was another marriage deed signed by the parties in the year 2014 after the Respondent obtained a divorce from her husband, in which it was stated that the parties were living together for the last five years and intended to marry each other according to Hindu rites and will reside together as husband and wife and will be faithful to each other.
• The Court also perused the photographs of the parties which gave the impression that the parties had been living together as husband and wife and have married each other.
• The Court also perused the school records which show that the petitioner has been stated as the father of the child and the bank account copies which show the petitioner has been listed as the nominee.
• The Court placed reliance on Indra Sharma vs. V. K. V. Sharma case where the parties were residing together and the respondent was already married to someone else. The woman had claimed maintenance after there were differences between them.

Court Observations

• The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge directing the Petitioner-man to pay ad-interim maintenance to his live-in partner under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
• The Court concluded that the parties were adults and had cohabited for a long time voluntarily.
• The Court also ruled whether or not the conduct of the Respondent concerning the relationship – whether she was duped by the Petitioner or whether she was a party to the adulterous relationship, would entitle her for any protection under the DV Act can only be determined after the evidence is led.
• The Hon’ble High Court also held that if the trial court finds that the Respondent was not entitled to the protection under the DV Act, then it should be ensured that the Respondent returns the amount received as interim maintenance by her to the petitioner with interest.

What do you think of this case?