Section 2(F) DV Act | Living Together in ‘Nature of Marriage’ Qualifies as Domestic Relationship: Delhi High Court

Post By 24law
January 18, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Delhi High Court has clarified that two individuals living together in a shared household through a relationship in the "nature of marriage" qualify as being in a "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). Justice Amit Mahajan delivered this significant judgment while setting aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which had dismissed a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act.

Case Background

The petitioner, Anamika Chandel, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging cruelty by the respondent, Dr. Naresh Chandel, and his family members. She claimed that their marriage was solemnized on April 22, 2006, and they lived together for almost seven years. During this period, she alleged acts of domestic violence.

The respondent, however, denied the marriage, citing a "Friendship Agreement" dated April 13, 2006, and submitted documents, including a marriage certificate and a divorce decree, to support his claim that both parties were already married to other individuals at the time of the alleged marriage. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the petitioner was neither an "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) of the DV Act nor in a relationship in the "nature of marriage" with the respondent.

High Court’s Observations

The High Court overturned the ASJ's judgment and restored the complaint, highlighting the inclusive definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Justice Mahajan remarked: "In terms of Section 2(f) of the Act, domestic relationship not only means a relationship between two persons who live together in a shared household by virtue of marriage. Two persons who lived together in a shared household through a relationship in the ‘nature of marriage’ would also be called to be in a domestic relationship."

The Court emphasized that the veracity of the respondent’s claims, including the Friendship Agreement and the marriage certificate, could only be established after evidence was presented by both parties. It was held that dismissing the complaint at the initial stage was erroneous as it prematurely disregarded the allegations of domestic violence.

Legal Analysis

The Court reiterated the significance of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which defines "domestic relationship" as: "A relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family."

The judgment highlights that the term "relationship in the nature of marriage" is broader than legal marriage and includes relationships resembling marital arrangements. The Court said that a proper inquiry into the allegations was required before dismissing the complaint, especially when the petitioner alleged cohabitation and domestic violence over a substantial period.

Key Points from the Judgment

The petitioner alleged that she resided with the respondent for nearly seven years in a shared household.

The Court clarified that even if the relationship was not a legal marriage, it could qualify as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the DV Act.

The Court stated that the respondent’s reliance on documents like the Friendship Agreement and marriage certificate could not be accepted as conclusive evidence without proper examination.

The High Court restored the petitioner’s complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, directing the Family Court to proceed in accordance with law.