Under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to determine whether a relationship is in the nature of marriage, the court must analyze the entire interpersonal relationship. This includes cohabitation, emotional bond, mutual responsibilities, and understanding between the parties. It is not limited to the duration of cohabitation or children alone but includes all dimensions of the relationship.
In the case of Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Harsora, the Supreme Court interpreted the term “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and read it down to include both men and women in cases of domestic violence, recognizing the broader intent of the law to protect both genders from domestic abuse.
Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act allows the Magistrate to provide monetary relief to ensure that the aggrieved person can maintain a standard of living that is consistent with what they were accustomed to before the abuse. This reflects the law’s objective to ensure that the woman’s dignity is preserved and she is not left in a vulnerable financial state after the violence.
In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the term “shared household” under the Domestic Violence Act. The Court emphasized that a shared household refers to a household where there is permanency, and mere transient or casual living is not sufficient to qualify as a shared household.
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a woman in a live-in relationship to claim maintenance as long as she can provide evidence of cohabitation. It does not require a formal marriage certificate, recognizing the need to protect women who may not be legally married but have lived together in a domestic relationship.
(A) Conditions for a Hindu Marriage | (i) Section 13 |
(B) Registration of Hindu Marriage | (ii) Section 10 |
(C) Judicial Separation | (iii) Section 5 |
(D) Divorce | (iv) Section 8 |