Chhattisgarh High Court upholds maintenance for woman in live-in relationship under DV Act

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently upheld an order directing a man to provide maintenance to a woman with whom he was in a live-in relationship, as well as her three-year-old daughter.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas deliberated upon whether a woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to get maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), 2005.

He observed that the woman had clearly stated she was not aware of the man's prior family, and that he had failed to provide any evidence proving she knew about his marriage and children.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the relationship between the applicant and the respondent was in the nature of marriage.

The Court was hearing a revision petition filed by the husband against a verdict upholding a magistrate order directing him to pay ₹4,000 per month in maintenance to the woman, ₹2,000 per month to the child, and ₹50,000 in compensation, payable in five instalments.

The couple had married in 2016 and had a child together. The woman alleged that the man had subjected her to cruelty through alcohol consumption and abusive language, prompting her to file a police complaint, as well as an application for maintenance under the DV Act.

In response, the man argued that he was already married and had three children from that wedlock. He denied that any marriage occurred between him and the woman in question. He also refuted the claim that a child was born from their relationship.

While dismissing the man's plea against the award of maintenance, the Court observed that the DV Act was enacted with the purpose of safeguarding a woman's right to reside in her matrimonial home.

“This Act has special features with special provisions under law which provides protection to a woman to live in a violence-free home."

The Court also rejected the man's argument that since he was already married, the woman could not claim the benefits of the DV Act for a live-in relationship.

"Material placed on record and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant is already a married person and therefore, respondent No.1 cannot be granted the benefit of the D.V. Act as she cannot fall within the ambit of a live-in relationship, deserves to be rejected. The applicant has not produced any evidence to prove that respondent No.1 knew about his marriage and children before entering into the relationship, from which respondent No.2 was born,” the Court observed.

The Court referred to the case of Lalita Toppo v. The State of Jharkhand, in which it was held that victims, including estranged wives or live-in partners, are entitled to more relief than what is provided under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.

It was also noted that the DV Act grants the right to reside in a "shared household," offering broader protection to women beyond mere financial maintenance.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the relationship between the man and the woman fell within the scope of a domestic relationship under the DV Act.

Advocate Ramsevak Soni represented the applicant husband.

[Read judgment]