Long-Term Relationship and Birth of Child Are Prima Facie Indicators of Relationship in Nature of Marriage: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the legal principles governing “relationships in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, holding that a long-standing relationship between two individuals, coupled with the birth of a child from such relationship, constitutes a strong prima facie indicator of a relationship akin to marriage.
A Single Bench of Justice M.M. Nerlikar declined to quash proceedings initiated under the Domestic Violence Act, observing that the existence of a prolonged relationship and the birth of a child therefrom warranted a full trial. The Court held that, at the threshold stage, such circumstances satisfy the prima facie requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010).
The petition before the High Court sought quashing of proceedings arising from a complaint filed by the woman and her daughter under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that the parties had never lived in a shared household and, therefore, their relationship could not fall within the statutory definition of a “domestic relationship” or a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
The factual background revealed that the relationship between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 had subsisted for a considerable period. It was alleged that the respondent became pregnant twice during the relationship, with the first pregnancy being terminated at the insistence of the petitioner, and the second resulting in the birth of a female child. The respondent asserted that the relationship bore all characteristics of a marital relationship and that the petitioner later declined to marry her.
Subsequently, the respondent initiated criminal proceedings, including registration of an FIR alleging sexual offences. Parallelly, proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were instituted seeking protection and monetary reliefs. Interim maintenance had already been granted by the trial court in favour of the respondent woman and the child.
The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in D. Velusamy, contending that absence of a shared household and cohabitation disqualified the relationship from being treated as one in the nature of marriage. It was further argued that the respondent was residing separately with relatives and friends during the relevant period, as reflected in the FIR.
The High Court, however, declined to accept these submissions at the threshold stage. It observed that the existence of a long-term intimate relationship resulting in the birth of a child could not be lightly brushed aside. The Court held that such facts prima facie satisfy the guiding principles laid down in D. Velusamy, warranting a full-fledged trial and evaluation of evidence.
Significantly, the Court also took note of the timing of the petitioner’s subsequent marriage, observing that the alleged marriage with another woman occurred after the relationship with the respondent, thereby reinforcing the respondent’s claim that her relationship with the petitioner was first in point of time.
While the Court found no specific allegations against Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 and consequently quashed the proceedings against them, it refused to grant any relief to Petitioner No.1. The Court held that the allegations against him required adjudication on merits and could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court partly allowed the petition by quashing proceedings against Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, while dismissing it insofar as Petitioner No.1 was concerned, reiterating that the existence of a long-term relationship and birth of a child constitute strong prima facie evidence of a relationship in the nature of marriage under the Domestic Violence Act.