DEFINITION OF “DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP” UNDER PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

“Domestic relationship” has been defined under Section 2 (f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

For a relationship to be “domestic relationship” between two persons, there should exist a relationship of consanguinity, marriage or a relationship in nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living to-gather as a joint family. Such persons should live presently in a shared household or at any point of time have lived together in a shared household.

It is evident from the definition of “domestic relationship” that “domestic relationship” includes a wide range of relationships. Domestic relationship includes relationship by consanguinity.

Relationship by consanguinity is a relationship between persons, who have descended from the same ancestor. Relationship by consanguinity can be lineal consanguinity or collateral consanguinity. Lineal consanguinity is a relationship in direct line such as child, parent and grandparents. It may be determined upward or downward. It may be determined upward as in case of son, father and grandfather or it may be determined downward as in case of son, grandson or great grandson. Collateral consanguinity is a remote relationship between persons who are related by common ancestor but do not descend from same ancestor such as cousins.

Domestic relationship includes marital relationship as well as relationship in nature of marriage. Relationship in nature of marriage has been incorporated by the legislature keeping in view current social reality. Relationship in nature of marriage covers certain live-in relationships but not all live-in relationships.

Domestic relationship also includes relationship by adoption.

Domestic relationship also includes relationship between family members living together as joint family members. Joint family has not been defined under the Act. Joint family has been used in generic way and cannot be given restrictive meaning like Hindu undivided family.

Supreme Court in Hiral P. Harsora and Ors. vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora And Ors; (2016)10SCC165 has observed as under:

18. It will be noticed that the definition of “domestic relationship” contained in Section 2(f) is a very wide one. It is a relationship between persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related in any one of four ways-blood, marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or family members of a joint family. A reading of these definitions makes it clear that domestic relationships involve persons belonging to both sexes and includes persons related by blood or marriage. This necessarily brings within such domestic relationships male as well as female in-laws, quite apart from male and female members of a family related by blood. Equally, a shared household includes a household which belongs to a joint family of which the Respondent is a member. As has been rightly pointed out by Ms. Arora, even before the 2005 Act was brought into force on 26.10.2006, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended, by which Section 6 was amended, with effect from 9.9.2005, to make females coparceners of a joint Hindu family and so have a right by birth in the property of such joint family. This being the case, when a member of a joint Hindu family will now include a female coparcener as well, the restricted definition contained in Section 2(q) has necessarily to be given a relook, given that the definition of ’shared household‘ in Section 2(s) of the Act would include a household which may belong to a joint family of which the Respondent is a member. The aggrieved person can therefore make, after 2006, her sister, for example, a Respondent, if the Hindu Succession Act amendment is to be looked at. But such is not the case Under Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act, as the main part of Section 2(q) continues to read “adult male person”, while Section 2(s) would include such female coparcener as a Respondent, being a member of a joint family. This is one glaring anomaly which we have to address in the course of our judgment.

RELATIONSHIP IN NATURE OF MARRIAGE

The term “relationship in nature of marriage” has not been defined under the Act. The term has been included by the legislature in view of changing social scenario in India. Even though the culture of live-in has not as yet been widely accepted by society in India, there are increasing instances of live-in relationships. Women in live-in relationships are also in need of protection. But all live-in relationships are not covered under the definitions of domestic relationship. As legislature has not defined the term, one will have to rely on the interpretation supplied by Judiciary.

In Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal; ( 2010) 10 SCC 469 the Supreme Court has prescribed certain conditions which must be fulfilled for a relationship to be covered under “relationship in nature of marriage”.

32. Some countries in the world recognize common law marriages. A common law marriage, sometimes called de facto marriage, or informal marriage is recognized in some countries as a marriage though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry (see details on Google).

33. In our opinion a ’relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married:

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to marry.

(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

(see ‘Common Law Marriage’ in Wikipedia on Google)

In our opinion a ’relationship in the nature of marriage‘ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a ’shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ’domestic relationship‘.

34. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a ’keep‘ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.

The Supreme Court in Indra Sharma vs V.K.V. Sarma; (2013) 15 SCC 755 has also provided certain guidelines to determine whether a relationship is “relationship in nature of marriage”.

55. We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” Under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will definitely give some insight to such relationships.

(1) Duration of period of relationship

Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression “at any point of time”, which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

(2) Shared household

The expression has been defined Under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.

(3) Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements

Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.

(4) Domestic Arrangements

Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up keeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

(5) Sexual Relationship

Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.

(6) Children

Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.

(7) Socialization in Public

Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage.

(8) Intention and conduct of the parties

Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily determines the nature of that relationship.

_____________________________________________