Supreme Court

In this case, one of the petitioners was already married against her wishes. Subsequently she had a live-in relationship with the other petitioner for five years,and later eloped with intention to marry. Therefore, she and her partner sought protection since they claimed to have a right to live-in relationship. This Court, analyzing the case on the lines of the Supreme Court’s ratio in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, held that the petitioners entered into a relationship knowing fully well the marital status of each other. Since the woman’s marriage had not yet been dissolved by any competent court as on date, therefore, such a relationship could be granted any protection and would therefore not be covered under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act to fall within the expression relationship “in the nature of marriage” The High Court held that the relationship between the parties would not fall within the ambit of “relationship in the nature of marriage” and the tests laid down in Velusamy case (supra) have not been satisfied. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Courts below