In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court has issued an order directing a former non-spousal partner of a married woman to provide financial support to her in accordance with the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. The sessions court had previously rejected the woman’s request for maintenance, but the Bombay High Court has overturned that decision and granted her plea.
Case:
The petitioner, a married woman, claims to have been abandoned by her husband, Mr. X, over 20 years ago. She has three children from this marriage. In 1994, she entered into a relationship with Mr. Y, a vegetable trader, and lived with him and her children. After 15 years of cohabitation, the relationship between the petitioner and Mr. Y ended due to a disagreement. In 2012, the petitioner filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act seeking maintenance from her former live-in partner, Mr. Y. The magistrate’s court ruled in her favor, granting her the right to maintenance, but this decision was reversed by the sessions court. The petitioner then filed an appeal in the High Court.
Presentation by the Petitioner
The petitioner claimed that she cohabitated with Mr. Y for 15 years, shared in household expenses, and her children from her previous marriage referred to him as “father.
Defense By Live-in Partner (Mr Y)
The man’s lawyers opposed the plea saying “merely living together under a shared household is not the only test of determining whether the relationship between the couple was in the nature of marriage”.
Bombay High Court
Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court overturned the decision of the sessions court, which had denied the petitioner’s request for maintenance. The judge ruled that a married woman who has been in a non-marital cohabitation relationship with a man for over 15 years is eligible to receive financial support from him under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.
Justice Dangre determined that a domestic relationship akin to marriage existed between the two individuals. The High Court accordingly
From the facts of this case, it can be seen that the couple has held themselves to the world as husband and wife. Not only that, there was an economic exchange between them and they were carrying out the said business of trading (in vegetables).
It is her categorical statement that he had, in fact, helped her raise the children and share household expenses.
Furthermore, the court noted the petitioner’s assertion that she had contributed to expenses for her daughter’s wedding and was now without funds to support herself.
Financial Support Pursuant to the Domestic Violence Act
The judge stated that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, a legislative measure enacted to protect women from violence, must be taken into account. Upholding the petitioner’s claim for maintenance and reversing the decision of the lower court, Justice Dangre concluded:
The term ‘abuse’ for which the protection can be sought has been construed to be operating on a wide compass to include physical and economic abuse.
Taking into consideration the purpose of the enactment, the provisions contained in the enactment are to be liberally construed to achieve the object of ensuring the welfare of a woman for whom the Act is intended to grant certain protection in certain situations.
The court rejected the argument put forth by the respondent and relied upon testimony from witnesses who indicated that the two individuals had lived together for an extended period of time and that the petitioner was recognized as the respondent’s wife.