Introduction:

In a landmark ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld an order mandating a man to provide maintenance to a woman with whom he had a live-in relationship, as well as their three-year-old child. The Court emphasized that the woman had no knowledge of the man’s prior marriage and children. This decision underscores the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) to live-in relationships, particularly where the woman is unaware of the man’s marital status.

The judgment came in response to the man’s challenge of an earlier order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, later upheld by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, which directed him to pay Rs. 4,000 per month to the woman and Rs. 2,000 per month to their child, along with compensation of Rs. 50,000. The High Court, led by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, reaffirmed the legal protections afforded to women in domestic relationships under the DV Act.

Arguments:

Applicant’s Arguments:

The man, represented by his counsel, argued that since he was already married, the woman was not entitled to maintenance under the DV Act. He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013), which held that a woman living in a live-in relationship with a married man cannot claim maintenance. He also contended that the woman was aware of his previous marriage and children before entering into the relationship, and thus, the DV Act should not apply.

Additionally, he challenged the legitimacy of their child and denied any formal marriage with the respondent, arguing that the absence of a legal marital bond disqualified the woman from seeking maintenance.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent woman, on the other hand, claimed she was unaware of the man’s prior marriage and children. She believed they were in a legally valid relationship and presented evidence of their child’s birth, in which the man’s name was listed as the father. After the child’s birth, the man abandoned her, and she was forced to file a police complaint. She maintained that this relationship qualified as a domestic relationship under the DV Act and sought maintenance for herself and her child.

Court’s Judgment:

• Applicability of the DV Act:

The Chhattisgarh High Court, led by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, ruled that the DV Act does apply to live-in relationships, especially when the woman is unaware of the man’s prior marital status. The Court dismissed the man’s reliance on the Indra Sarma case, highlighting that in Indra Sarma, the woman was fully aware of the man’s marriage before entering the relationship. In contrast, in this case, the woman had no knowledge of the man’s previous marriage, making her eligible for protection and maintenance under the DV Act.

• Nature of the Relationship:

The Court affirmed that the relationship between the applicant and respondent fell within the ambit of a domestic relationship, as defined by the DV Act. The respondent’s lack of knowledge regarding the man’s first marriage, coupled with their cohabitation and the birth of a child, entitled her to legal protections. The High Court reinforced that women in such relationships have a right to seek maintenance if they were led to believe they were in a legitimate domestic arrangement.

• Maintenance Award:

Regarding the financial relief, the Court held that the maintenance awarded by the lower courts — Rs. 4,000 for the woman and Rs. 2,000 for the child — was reasonable and appropriate, given the man’s employment and income as a government forest guard. The Court dismissed the man’s argument that the amount was burdensome, stating that it was in proportion to his financial capabilities.

• Dismissal of the Plea:

The High Court ultimately dismissed the man’s plea, upholding the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Second Additional Sessions Judge. It ruled that the woman and her child were legally entitled to maintenance under the DV Act, and that there was no legal or procedural error in the lower courts’ decisions that would warrant the High Court’s intervention.

This judgment reinforces the legal protections for women in live-in relationships, particularly in cases where they are unaware of the man’s prior marital status, and highlights the High Court’s commitment to ensuring their right to maintenance and support.