“Long Relationship and Birth of a Child are Prima Facie Signs of Marriage-Like Bond”: Bombay High Court Refuses to Quash DV Case Against Man
“Long Relationship and Birth of a Child are Prima Facie Signs of Marriage-Like Bond”: Bombay High Court Refuses to Quash DV Case Against Man NAGPUR – In a significant judgment reinforcing the protective ambit of the Domestic Violence Act, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a long-term relationship accompanied by the birth of a child constitutes prima facie evidence of a "relationship in the nature of marriage". The Court emphasized that such cases cannot be quashed at the threshold and must be tested through a full trial. Presiding over the matter, Justice M.M. Nerlikar observed that when a couple lives together for a significant duration and procreates, the legal presumption leans toward a domestic relationship, even in the absence of a formal marriage ceremony. Major Observations: Procreation as a "Strong Indication" of Commitment The Court’s decision came while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by a man seeking to quash proceedings initiated by a woman under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act). The Bench articulated several major observations regarding the interpretation of "Domestic Relationships": Significance of Procreation: Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court noted that having children is a "strong indication" of a relationship in the nature of marriage, suggesting the parties intended to have a long-standing relationship. Evidence over Threshold Quashing: Justice Nerlikar remarked that because a child was born from the relationship, he was "not inclined to quash the complaint at this threshold". He held that evidence must be led by the parties to reach an informed decision in the interest of justice. Duration and Sexual Relationship: The Court highlighted that a "marriage-like relationship" refers to an emotional and intimate bond for the procreation of children and providing emotional support, rather than just a sexual relationship for pleasure. First in Point of Time: Although the petitioner claimed to have married another woman in July 2022, the Court observed that his relationship with the respondent was "first in point of time," reinforcing her claim for protection under the Act. Case Background and Procedural History The dispute arose after the respondent (the woman) filed for maintenance, alleging she had a long-term relationship with the petitioner during which she conceived twice. While the first pregnancy was allegedly aborted at the petitioner's insistence, a female child was born from the second pregnancy. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, contending they never shared a household and that the relationship did not meet the guidelines established in the D. Velusamy case, such as "holding themselves out to society" as spouses. However, the High Court noted that the trial court had already granted interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month to the woman and ₹2,000 to the child after finding the relationship to be akin to marriage. Partial Relief for Family Members While the High Court refused to quash the case against the man (Petitioner No. 1), it extended relief to his parents and his current wife (Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4). The Court observed that there were no specific allegations against these individuals in the entire complaint that would justify invoking D.V. Act provisions against them, thereby quashing the proceedings specifically in their regard. The matter will now proceed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi, for a final determination based on the evidence.
