CASE Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma

Core idea: Not all live-in relationships qualify under the DV Act. To be a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, the tie must show essential marital traits. Here, the appellant knew the respondent was married with children; the relationship did not meet the standard.

Result: The claim under the DV Act failed; maintenance was declined. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court and dismissed the appeal.

• Does this live-in qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) DV Act?
• If not, can the appellant claim maintenance under the DV Act?

1. DV Act, Section 2(f): “Domestic relationship” includes a relationship in the nature of marriage.
2. Test: The relationship must show essential marital characteristics (stability, exclusivity, shared household, social presentation as spouses).

Held: The relationship was not “in the nature of marriage.” Knowing involvement with a married man did not create a protected domestic relationship under Section 2(f) DV Act. Maintenance under the DV Act was therefore not available. Appeal dismissed.

The Court cautioned: all live-ins are not protected; only those mirroring marriage are.

• DV Act covers live-ins only when essential features of marriage are shown.
• Knowledge of a subsisting marriage and lack of marital indicia defeat DV Act protection.

This case draws a clear boundary for DV Act coverage in live-ins. It gives students a workable test for “relationship in the nature of marriage.”

• Not every live-in is protected by the DV Act.
• Essential marital traits are mandatory to qualify.
• Knowledge of a subsisting marriage weighs against protection.

Mnemonic: “LOOK LIKE MARRIAGE”

1. Look: Does the live-in look like marriage—stable, exclusive, shared home?
2. Law: If yes → DV Act may apply under Section 2(f).
3. Limit: If not (e.g., partner already married) → no DV Act maintenance.

Issue

Whether this live-in is a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under DV Act; and whether maintenance can be granted.

Rule

DV Act Section 2(f); essential marital characteristics test.

Application

Respondent’s subsisting marriage was known to the appellant; the relationship lacked essential marital traits. Hence, DV Act protection not triggered.

Conclusion

No DV Act relief; maintenance declined; appeal dismissed.

DV Act

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Relationship in the Nature of Marriage

Live-in that mirrors essential features of a valid marriage.

Domestic Relationship (S.2(f))

Includes marriage, relationships in the nature of marriage, and certain family ties.