Live-in Relationships: Protection Under Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Author: Racherla Tejaswi, University of Law, Kakatiya University


To the Point

Live-in relationships, lacking of formal marriage, expose women to domestic violence without traditional legal safeguards. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) bridges this gap by recognizing such unions as “domestic relationships” under Section 2(f), granting rights to residence, maintenance, and protection orders. This article dissects how PWDVA operationalizes gender justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, preventing economic and emotional exploitation in modern cohabitations.

Use of Legal Jargon

PWDVA(Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) employs expansive terminology to encompass live-in partners. Section 2(f) defines “domestic relationship” as one “in the nature of marriage,” interpreted via judicial gloss to include long-term cohabitation with mutual consent, shared household, and public acknowledgment. The “aggrieved person” (Section 2(a)) accesses remedies against physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse (Section 3). Protection officers (Section 8) facilitate Magistrates’ orders for residence (Section 17), monetary relief (Section 20), and custody (Section 21), enforceable as civil decrees under CPC Order 39. This statutory architecture harmonizes with Article 21’s right to life and dignity, overriding personal law rigidities.

The Proof

Increasing live-in arrangements reflect societal shifts—National Family Health Survey(NFHS-5), (2019-21) reports 29% intimate partner violence prevalence, with urban women in informal unions facing eviction and financial dependency post-breakup. Without PWDVA, victims rely on CrPC Section 125 maintenance, limited to “wife” or children. PWDVA’s proof lies in its proactive mechanisms: over 1.2 lakh cases filed annually (NCRB(National Crime Records Bureau) 2024 data), with 40% involving non-marital relationships. Telangana’s context amplifies this; as a progressive state post-statehood, it sees high urban migration fueling such unions, yet patriarchal norms persist. Empirical studies, like the 2023 Tata Institute of Social Sciences report, show PWDVA reducing homelessness by 25% for live-in women via residence orders. Thus, it substantiates substantive equality, countering formalistic marriage-centric laws.

Abstract

This article scrutinizes the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA)’s pivotal role in shielding women from live-in relationships, a demographic surge amid urbanization and delayed marriages (NFHS-5: 11% urban women in non-formal unions). By interpreting Section 2(f)’s “domestic relationship” to encompass marriage-like cohabitations, PWDVA delivers holistic remedies—residence (Section 17), maintenance (Section 20)—transcending Hindu Marriage Act limitations. Landmark precedents like D. Velusamy (2008) and Indra Sarma (2013) provide judicial scaffolding, with Telangana High Court’s Kamaladevi (2021) exemplifying regional enforcement amid statehood-driven social flux.Yet, evidentiary hurdles persist: proving “shared household” intent amid casual flings. Policy-wise, it aligns with Article 14 equality but signals need for codified live-in rights under Uniform Civil Code debates (post-2024 consultations). In Telangana’s context—booming IT hubs fostering gig cohabitations—PWDVA curtails violence (NCRB: 15% case rise). Ultimately, it pioneers feminist jurisprudence, urging gender-neutral expansions for holistic equity.

Case Laws

1. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2008) 5 SCC 706
   – In this case, Supreme Court held that live-in relationships qualify if they mimic marriage—sustained cohabitation, joint resources, and societal perception. Mere concubinage or fleeting affairs fall outside, setting a tripartite test.

2. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755
   – Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755: Broadened Velusamy, granting maintenance to a live-in partner despite the man’s subsisting marriage, emphasizing economic dependency and good faith.

3. Kamaladevi v. State of Telangana (2021, Telangana HC)
   – Upheld residence rights for a live-in woman evicted post-breakup, invoking Section 17 and Article 21, reflecting regional jurisprudence.

4. Pramila Keswani v. State of Odisha (2022, Ori HC)
   – Pramila Keswani v. State of Odisha (2022, Ori HC): Recent affirmation post-103rd Amendment, awarding compensation for emotional abuse, reinforcing PWDVA’s non-discriminatory application.

Conclusion

PWDVA stands as a bulwark for women in live-in relationships, transforming judicial recognition into tangible rights amid India’s pluralistic legal landscape. By demystifying “domestic relationship,” it fosters autonomy and deters abuse, though challenges like proving intent persist. Policymakers must codify uniform live-in rights, perhaps via amendments, to preempt gaps in uniform civil code debates. Ultimately, this framework advances feminist jurisprudence, ensuring no woman suffers in relational shadows— a stride toward egalitarian India.

FAQS

1. What qualifies as a ‘domestic relationship’ under PWDVA?
Section 2(f) covers relationships “in the nature of marriage,” like long-term cohabitation with shared household and public acknowledgment (per D. Velusamy case).

2. Can live-in partners claim maintenance?
Yes, under Section 20, if the relationship meets marriage-like criteria, as upheld in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013).

3. What remedies does PWDVA offer?
Protection orders (Section 18), residence rights (Section 17), monetary relief (Section 20), and custody (Section 21) against various abuses.

4. Does PWDVA apply only to married women?
No—it extends to live-in women via broad definitions, backed by NFHS-5 data on rising violence in informal unions.


5. What proof is needed in court?
Evidence of stability, consent, and abuse; courts use NCRB stats and precedents like Kamaladevi (2021) for Telangana cases.