Indra Sarma v. V.K.

V Sarma [AIR 2014 SC 309]

Introduction
In India, the concept of a live-in relationship was first discussed by the judiciary
in the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation. In this case, the
Supreme Court noted that under Indian legislation, a live-in partnership
involving consenting adults is considered lawful when it adheres to the
prerequisites for marriage, including meeting the legal age of marriage,
8
providing consent, and demonstrating mental competency. There are no explicit
7
regulations that either authorize or prohibit such relationships. Again in Lata
Singh v State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court said that in India, though the
6
society does not accept live-in relationships, it is not a crime either.
5
This concept is also relevant to the landmark case of Indra Sarma v V. K. V.
4
Sarma and the ongoing murder case of Shraddha Walkar, where her boyfriend
3
murdered and cuts her into 35 pieces before throwing it across the Chhatarpur
2
jungle of Delhi. In this context, the former case is considered a landmark
1
judgment because the Supreme Court laid down the conditions that must be
satisfied by a couple in a live-in relationship.

A way for Live-in Relationships

Live-in relationships have been accepted by several Indian courts by way of
their verdicts. A few landmark verdicts include D Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal,
Indra Sarma v. V. K. V. Sarma, Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, and much more.
However, D Velusamy and Indra Sarma case are considered to be the most
prominent ones because the former sets out the conditions that need to be
fulfilled for a live-in relationship to be considered a relationship in nature of
marriage, and the latter sets out more guidelines to simplify and reduce the
controversies surrounding the issue.
Especially in Indra Sarma, the Supreme Court considered legislations and
judgments of various countries along with international treaties and accords
like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While going through the
conditions and requirements set out in the past proceedings, the Court noted a
non-exhaustive list of essentials which includes:
. Duration of the relationship
. Shared Household
. Financially dependent on one another
. Entrusting the responsibility, particularly in domestic arrangements
. Sexual relationship
. Intention to bear children
. Announcing in the public
. Partners’ common intention and conduct
This court noted that the man is not obliged to maintain the woman because
she is not in the position of a wife but more of a mistress. While deciding on
this, the bench carefully laid out a few prerequisites to be met by the woman to
qualify as a wife in the relationship rather than a mistress; only then would she
be maintained by the man.
By advancing the long-standing debate, this case has set a path for live-in
relationships in India, hence giving Indian Courts a way or method to deal with
the cases that fall under this umbrella.

Facts
Initial Phase:
The appellant, Indra Sarma, and the respondent, V. K. V. Sarma, were
colleagues in the same company where the latter was a married man with two
children working as the Personal Officer of the Company. The appellant quit the
company job and began to reside and live with the respondent in a shared
household while the respondent was working. To substantiate this, she
maintained that V. K. V. Sarma (the respondent) had started a business in her
name through which they worked and made a living.

Arising Differences Between the Couple:

A while after starting the business, the respondent suddenly changed the
business to his original residence, where his wife and children lived, and took
assistance from his son to continue the business. This change brought about
by the respondent denied the appellant’s rights to work and earn an income. It
is to be noted that when the couple lived in the shared household, the appellant
got pregnant thrice. Every time the respondent forced the appellant to abort.
This act of the respondent was considered cruelty by the appellant. Further, the
respondent took several loans from the appellant with a promise to repay her,
but the promise remains unfulfilled.

Social Life of the Couple:

The appellant alleged that she was subjected to harassment by the respondent
as he did not refer to her as his wife in public and did not allow her to use his
name as her surname. Further, he did not escort her to his relatives’ houses,
friends’ places, or anywhere else, including hospitals and banks. Hence, the
respondent’s family compelled him to leave the appellant’s company, so the
latter alleged non-maintenance after he left her society.
The appellant initially filed a Criminal case before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, which was ordered in favour of the
appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent went for an appeal
under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Sessions Court,
where the order was again passed in favour of the appellant. Further, the
respondent filed another appeal before the High Court, which set aside the
lower courts’ verdicts and ordered in favour of the respondent.

Issues
The facts and allegations, in this case, have given rise to two significant issues
framed by the court and dealt with. They are –
. “Whether a live-in relationship would amount to a relationship in the
nature of marriage falling within the definition of domestic relationship
under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
 .

Violence Act, 2005 (Also known as the Domestic Violence Act) ?”

. “If the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a woman
involved in such a relationship amounts to domestic violence within
the meaning of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act?”

Contentions of the Appellant

Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, the representing lawyer for the appellant, stated that
the appellant and respondent had been in a live-in relationship from 1992 to
2006. However, after that period, the respondent began neglecting the
appellant and stopped providing financial support. The council also stated that
as per Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, the relationship between the
parties constituted a relationship in the nature of marriage. He explained that
under the said Section, a relationship is where a man and woman share a
household irrespective of whether they are married to each other or not. The
counsel also submitted that the relationship satisfies the tests in the Velusamy
case, and the said tests include:
. The couple must publicly present themselves as similar to married
partners.
. They must be of legally marriageable age.
. They must meet all other requirements for a legal marriage, including
not having an existing spouse.
. They must have chosen to live together and publicly present
themselves as a couple for a significant duration.

Contentions of the Respondent

Learned counsel Mr. Nikhil Majithia represented the respondent. He stated that
the principles in the Velusamy case were not satisfied because neither party
was qualified to enter into a legal marriage. Further, the appellant knew the
other party was married and had two children. So, the counsel contended that
the relationship would not fall under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act.
He also submitted that the relationship was for the parties’ mutual benefit and
that the appellant was not subjected to any fraudulent activities during the
relationship.

Verdict Given
Sections 2(f) and 3 of the Domestic Violence Act influenced the verdict given
because they speak about the nature of a relationship and maintenance of the
same in case of any abandonment by the man. Section 2(f) of the Domestic
Violence Act states that “‘domestic relationship’ means 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 court referred to various international laws and legislations. The bench also
took insights from multiple Indian and foreign case laws like Lata Singh v. State
of U. P., the Badri Prasad case, Stack v. Dowden, Thompson v Department of
Social Welfare, and others. The court noted how various countries like the US,
Australia, South Africa, and the UK proceed with live-in relationship cases and
the conditions set by those courts for a relationship to be considered as a
relationship in the nature of marriage.
In this case, the court held that the relationship between parties would not be
qualified as a ‘domestic relationship’ or a relationship in the nature of a
marriage. Since the appellant had complete knowledge that the respondent was
married, the strong character of a marriage is missing, which makes the
appellant’s status lower than that of a wife’s. So, the relationship here does not
fall under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act. Due to the same reasons,
the court held the respondent not liable for domestic violence under Section 3
of the said Act. Further, he was held to not be liable to maintain the appellant.
Thus, the Apex Court affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the
appeal.

Analysis
In India, the concept of a live-in relationship though not considered an offense
under the law, is still not socially accepted. Various debates and confusion
surrounding this topic need to be addressed from a legal perspective because
the number of cases relevant to this issue keeps piling up before the courts. It
is also necessary that the legislation in India also addresses it.

In this case, Indra Sarma v. V. K. V. Sarma, there are two significant propositions
– one, a recommendation to expand and broaden the scope of Section 2(f) of
the Domestic Violence Act, and two, it created an exception to the relationships
that are in the nature of marriage. The exception was if a woman knowingly gets
into a relationship with a man who is already married, and when the vital
characteristics of marriage are missing, she will not be considered a wife;
hence she will not be maintained.
The existing Section 2(f) of the said Act must be amended to give a broader
picture of the conditions and prerequisites that need to be met by a live-in
relationship to qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage. Further, the
Act must cover homosexual couples and other gender and sexual identities.
Under various legislations like Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act
and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only women are entitled to
compensation and maintenance. The scope must be expanded to protect any
partner of any sexual identity dependent on the other person for a living.
When speaking of domestic violence, it takes several forms, including physical
and mental abuse. This exists in the case of live-in relationships, where either
one of the partners becomes a victim of another’s activity. The worst cases can
be observed in the murder of Shraddha Walker where she was in a live-in
relationship with her boyfriend, Aaftab Poonawala. For a long time, she was
subject to physical and mental agony by the latter, who threatened to murder
her if she complained him to the police. But in the end, she was murdered by
him in furtherance of the violence she faced over a year. Protection must be
given and extended to these cases, and create an exception to provide relief
even if the relationship does not fall under the definition given under Domestic
Violence Act.

Other aspects like the legality of the child, property inheritance by the wife,
homosexual couples, inter alia, need special attention. For instance, the
legitimacy of the child born in the relationship was decided in S.P.S
Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan where the Supreme Court held that “if a couple
resides together in the same house and have been living together for a
significant period, Section 114 of the Evidence Act establishes a presumption
that they are living as a married couple. Furthermore, any children born to them
will not be considered illegitimate.” The same was held in the landmark cases
of Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai and Bharata Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan.
Although the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 does not directly recognize the
presence of cohabitation arrangements, it indirectly acknowledges and affirms
the entitlements of children born from such relationships. Section 16 of the Act
grants these children inheritance rights, thereby indirectly validating their
status.
In the case of a homosexual live-in relationship, India does not have any
specified law. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Apex Court
decriminalized Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and held that consensual
sex between homosexuals is not an unnatural offense. In a case before the
Uttarakhand High Court, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma noted that while the law
may not recognize marriages between individuals of the same sex, it is
essential to acknowledge that they still have the right to cohabitate and live
together even in the absence of a legally recognized marital union. Other High
Courts of Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, and Gujarat also recognized live-in
relationships of homosexual couples and ordered in their favor.
Lastly, with regard to the property rights of a woman, we can refer to the case
of Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors, where the court held that despite
the man having a wedded wife, the woman in the live-in relationship is entitled
to gain right and inherit his property.

Conclusion
Beginning from the case of Badri Prasad v Director of Consolidation, the law of
India does not restrict anyone from participating in a live relationship. The
understanding and legal recognition of live-in relationships in India has
progressively developed over time, with significant contributions from
judgments rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court and other apex courts,
which have played a pivotal role in shaping this concept.
Unlike legislation enacted in the parliament, the inferences drawn from
landmark judgments can be used subject to certain limitations and instructions.
So, considering the upcoming concepts in modern times, India needs suitable
legislation dealing with live-in relationships to ensure that the rights and duties
of live-in partners can be laid down lucidly.