The Chhattisgarh High Court recently affirmed a judgement mandating a man to give maintenance to a woman with whom he had a live-in relationship and their three-year-old daughter, observing that the woman was unaware about the man’s prior marriage and the three children resulting from it.
The court issued an order in response to a man’s petition contesting the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, which was affirmed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, mandating the payment of Rs. 4000 monthly to the respondent woman and Rs. 2000 monthly for their child as maintenance, in addition to a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to be disbursed in five installments.
The question of whether a woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was discussed by a single-judge bench headed by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in its decision.
In its decision, the high court acknowledged the objectives and intent of the Act and said that it was passed with the intention of protecting women’s rights to remain in their matrimonial home. It also mentioned that the Act has unique measures that protect women from domestic abuse.
The court said thereafter, “in the above back ground of the legal posison (sic) as well as considering the evidence, material placed on record submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is already a married person, therefore, the respondent No.1 (woman) cannot grant benefit of D.V. Act, as she cannot fall within the ambit of live-in-relationship also is being considered. The submission deserves to be rejected by this Court as the applicant has not produced any evidence on record to establish that the factum of his marriage and his children were known to respondent No.1 and despite this fact she made relationship with the applicant and from their relationship respondent No.2 was born“.
The court also said that the respondent woman had made it very clear in her testimony that she was unaware that the man was married or had children. According to the high court, both the trial court and the appellate court had found that the child of the man and the respondent woman was born in August 2017 and that the man’s name was written in place of the father’s name on the birth record and was “not disputed or dislodged” by the father.
The Hon’ble Court said, “Thus the courts below have recorded its finding that the relationship of the applicant and the respondent No.1 falls within the ambit of Domestic relationship. Thus the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court cannot be said that it suffers from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court,”.
The man argued before the high court that he was already married, therefore the respondent lady is ineligible for the protections afforded by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), since she does not qualify under the definition of a live-in relationship. He contended that the woman residing in a live-in cannot claim maintenance from her spouse under the DV Act, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013).
The woman, however, argued in her testimony that she was married to the guy, who she had solemnized her marriage with during Diwali in 2015. She further claimed that the applicant had abandoned her shortly after respondent No. 2 (the child) was born. She filed a complaint with the relevant police station, and they came to an arrangement. But according to the guy, he and the responsive woman never got married, therefore there is no chance that their child would be born out of wedlock.
The High Court further differentiated Indra Sarma’s case by observing that the appellant was fully cognisant of the respondent’s marital status and, notwithstanding this knowledge, consented to cohabit in a live-in relationship.
In contrast, the court found that the respondent woman in this instance had explicitly declared that she was unaware of the applicant’s family, and the applicant had not provided any evidence to support the claim that the respondent woman knew about the marriage and his children.
The Court stated, “Therefore, the relationship between the applicant and the respondent is in the nature of marriage,”.
Regarding the dispute over the amount of maintenance granted, the high court stated,“Now so far as quantam of maintenace awarded by the learned trial Court to the respondent No.1 Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- to respondent No.2 cannot be said to be bonanza or on a higher pedistrial, looking to the earning of the applicant who is working as forest guard and getting good amount of salary from the State Government. Thus, on this count also the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as affirmed by the Appellate Court cannot be said that it sufferes from perversity or illeglaity which warrants interference by this Court”.
The court subsequently rejected the man’s plea.
Counsel appears for the applicant Advocate Ramsevak Soni.