The Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman who enters into a relationship with a married man, while being fully aware of his marital status, cannot claim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). The Court held that such a relationship does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, upholding the Sessions Court’s order that had set aside the monetary reliefs and compensation previously granted to her by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pune.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an engineering student, claimed she was introduced to Respondent No. 1, a professor at the same college, while pursuing her degree. She alleged that Respondent No. 1 initiated a relationship with her in 2001 by gaining her sympathy, claiming that his wife (Respondent No. 2) was mentally ill.
According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 1 assured her he intended to marry her after obtaining a divorce. She claimed that on June 18, 2005, they secretly married at a Ganapati Temple in Mahad against her parents’ wishes. Following this, she alleged they cohabited as husband and wife in Mumbai and Pune. The petitioner further submitted that Respondent No. 1 acted as her husband during her IVF treatment, which resulted in the birth of a son.
The petitioner filed a complaint under the PWDVA in 2011. The JMFC, Pune, allowed her application on March 31, 2015, directing Respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 28,000 per month as maintenance, Rs. 5 Lakh as compensation, and Rs. 10,000 towards litigation costs.
However, this order was challenged before the Sessions Court, Pune, which, by a common judgment on July 26, 2016, quashed and set aside the relief granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Advocate Narayan G. Rokade, appearing for the petitioner, argued that she had entered the relationship based on the respondent’s misrepresentation. He emphasized that:
- The parties had performed a marriage ceremony.
- They had resided together for a considerable period in government quarters and rented premises.
- Respondent No. 1 exercised control over her finances as a mandate holder for her bank account.
- There was evidence of a jointly purchased flat and vehicles.
- Respondent No. 1 had signed consent forms for IVF treatment as her “husband,” leading to the birth of their child.
The counsel contended that these factors established a “relationship in the nature of marriage,” entitling her to protection under the Act.
Respondents’ Submissions: Advocate Sujay H. Gangal, representing the respondents, argued that the relationship was, at best, an extramarital affair. He submitted that:
- The petitioner, being a highly educated woman, entered the relationship with “open eyes,” fully aware that Respondent No. 1 was already married.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, arguing that a live-in relationship with a married person does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the PWDVA.
- The allegations of forced sexual relations and the validity of the alleged marriage ceremony were disputed.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Manjusha Deshpande focused on the interpretation of “Domestic Relationship” under Section 2(f) of the PWDVA, specifically whether the petitioner’s relationship could be termed as a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
The Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court decision in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), which laid down four essential criteria for a “relationship in the nature of marriage”:
- The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
- They must be of legal age to marry.
- They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
- They must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period.
The Court observed:
“In the present case the Respondent No. 1, who is already married does not qualify condition No. (c), which requires that the parties must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.”
Further, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the High Court noted that if a woman enters a relationship knowing that the man is married, the status of the relationship is that of a “concubine or mistress,” which does not qualify for protection under the PWDVA.
Justice Deshpande stated:
“It is admitted by the Petitioner that she was aware that Respondent No. 1 is married and having a child, however due to his misrepresentation, she has entered into a relationship with him… It is therefore evident that knowing it fully well that Respondent No. 1 is married, the Petitioner has entered into a relationship, which has no legal sanctity.”
The Court reasoned that granting maintenance in such cases would be “against the interest of legally wedded wife and children.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that her relationship with Respondent No. 1 was a “relationship in the nature of marriage” as required by the Act. Consequently, she was not entitled to the reliefs under the PWDVA.
“The relationship of the Petitioner does not come within the purview of Domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f) of the PWDVA, 2005, and consequently, the Petitioner is not entitled for the protection under the said Act.”
The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, was upheld.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sheetal Chandrakant Kunjir v. Chandrakant Tukaram Kunjir and Ors.
- Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3946 of 2016
- Coram: Justice Manjusha Deshpande
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Narayan G. Rokade a/w Mr. Swapnil S. Kalokhe
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sujay H. Gangal a/w Mr. Swaraj M. Savant
