Domestic Relationship under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The domestic relationship is the bridge between the two parties to every DV Act case. A woman is an aggrieved person only if she is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent, and a person is a respondent only if he or she is or has been in a domestic relationship with her. Section 2(f) therefore decides the reach of the whole Act. It asks two questions: are the parties related in one of five recognised ways, and have they lived together in a shared household at some point of time? This note explains both limbs, the problems of past relationships, separation, divorce and death, and how a domestic relationship is proved.

1. Section 2(f): Text and Structure

The definition has two cumulative limbs:

1. The residence limb: the two persons live, or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household.
2. The relationship limb: they are related by (i) consanguinity, (ii) marriage, (iii) a relationship in the nature of marriage, (iv) adoption, or (v) are family members living together as a joint family.

A relationship without shared residence (a brother living in another country) does not qualify; nor does shared residence without a family relationship (flatmates, a tenant and landlord, an employer and domestic worker). Both limbs must be satisfied.

2. The Relationship Limb: Five Bases

2.1 Consanguinity

Consanguinity means relationship by blood: parents and children, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren, and the wider circle of blood relations. It covers a mother and her son, a sister and her brother, and a daughter and her father. It is not limited to the nuclear family, but the residence limb keeps distant blood relations out unless they actually shared a household.

2.2 Marriage

Marriage covers the spouses themselves and relationships through marriage: a daughter-in-law with her parents-in-law, a woman with her husband's siblings, and a stepmother with stepchildren. The marriage must be one recognised by law; where a marriage is void (for example because of a subsisting earlier marriage), the woman may still fall within the third base if the relationship was in the nature of marriage.

2.3 Relationship in the nature of marriage

This covers live-in relationships that have the essential attributes of marriage. The Supreme Court laid down the tests in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469, and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755: holding out as spouses, legal capacity to marry, voluntary cohabitation for a significant period, and indicators such as duration, shared household, pooling of resources, domestic arrangements, children, socialisation and intention. These are examined in Topic 6.

2.4 Adoption

Adoption covers adoptive parents and children, and relationships derived from adoption. An adopted daughter is thus in a domestic relationship with her adoptive family when they share a household, and Section 2(b) expressly includes adopted, step and foster children in the definition of child.

2.5 Family members living together as a joint family

The last base is the widest. It covers persons who are family members living together as a joint family, even if their exact relationship is not one of blood, marriage or adoption in the strict sense, or is too remote to be obvious. It reflects Indian social reality: a joint household may include a husband's cousin, an uncle's widow or other kin who live and eat together. Here, the joint living is itself part of the relationship limb.

3. The Residence Limb: Living Together in a Shared Household

The residence limb connects Section 2(f) with Section 2(s) (shared household): the parties must live or have lived together in 'a shared household', meaning a household where the aggrieved person lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship, whether owned, rented or joint family property, and irrespective of title.

3.1 'Have, at any point of time, lived together'

These words extend the Act to past living arrangements. A woman who lived with her husband's family for some years and was then turned out remains in a domestic relationship with them for the purposes of the Act. The Supreme Court has given the words their full width. In Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 8 SCC 90, it held that a subsisting domestic relationship is not required when the application is filed, and that the aggrieved person need not have been residing with the respondents when the domestic violence occurred.

A more restrictive view had been taken earlier by the Delhi High Court in Vijay Verma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010). There, a sister who had settled permanently in the United States a decade earlier sought residence in her late father's house against her brother. The Court held that 'at any point of time' does not mean 'any time in the past': once a family member leaves and sets up a separate household, the domestic relationship with those left behind comes to an end, and a property dispute cannot be converted into a DV Act case. The two decisions are best reconciled on their facts: Prabha Tyagi protects women whose relationship was cut short by violence, death or eviction, while Vijay Verma refuses the Act to persons who voluntarily established independent lives long ago and use the Act to pursue property claims.

3.2 Duration and permanence of residence

The Act does not prescribe a minimum period of living together. But courts require that the residence be real, not a casual or fleeting stay. In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, the Supreme Court explained that the words 'lives or at any stage has lived' in Section 2(s) indicate living with some degree of permanency, not a flying visit. A few days' stay at a relative's home during a festival does not create a domestic relationship with that relative; a year spent living in the matrimonial home clearly does.

4. Past Domestic Relationship, Separation, Divorce and Death

4.1 Past relationship

Both Section 2(a) ('is, or has been') and Section 2(f) ('live or have, at any point of time, lived') cover past relationships. This is essential, because domestic violence often ends cohabitation: the woman flees or is thrown out. A definition confined to present relationships would reward the abuser who evicts.

4.2 Separation

Separation in fact does not end the domestic relationship for the purpose of seeking relief. Nor does a decree of judicial separation, which leaves the marriage intact (Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury, (2016) 2 SCC 705). Under Section 17(2), the aggrieved person cannot be evicted or excluded from the shared household except in accordance with the procedure established by law, and she may seek a residence order even after leaving.

4.3 Divorce

Divorce ends the marriage but not the fact that the parties had a domestic relationship. A divorced woman may seek relief for violence committed during the marriage (Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, (2014) 10 SCC 736), subject to scrutiny for abuse of process where proceedings are launched long after a mutual consent divorce (Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, (2011) 12 SCC 588). Acts after the divorce are not domestic violence 'in' a domestic relationship.

4.4 Death of the husband

The husband's death does not end a widow's domestic relationship with his family with whom she lived or was entitled to live. In Prabha Tyagi (2022), the widow married in June 2005 and widowed within a month; the Court held that she remained in a domestic relationship with her in-laws and could claim the right to reside in the shared household.

5. Extended Family and In-Laws

Indian households often include parents-in-law, unmarried siblings-in-law, and sometimes married brothers with their families. All of them may be in a domestic relationship with a daughter-in-law who lives with them, through marriage or through joint family living. This is why in-laws are frequently joined as respondents, and why after Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165, female in-laws may be respondents in their own right.

But the extended family is covered only to the extent that its members actually shared the household. A brother-in-law who lived in the same house is in a domestic relationship with the daughter-in-law; a married sister-in-law who visits twice a year is not. The residence of the in-laws also matters for residence orders: after Satish Chander Ahuja, a house owned by the in-laws in which the couple lived is a shared household, while the in-laws' separate property elsewhere, where she never lived, is not.

6. Proof of Domestic Relationship

The domestic relationship is a jurisdictional fact: without it, the application is not maintainable. At the threshold, the Magistrate proceeds on the pleadings and the affidavit, but where it is disputed the aggrieved person must prove it. Useful evidence includes:

Where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a long time, the court may presume a valid marriage under Section 114 of the Evidence Act (now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), though the presumption is rebuttable. Even where marriage is not proved, the same evidence may establish a relationship in the nature of marriage.

7. Cessation of Domestic Relationship

When does a domestic relationship end for the purposes of the Act? The better view, drawing on the cases, is this:

• It does not end merely because the woman leaves or is driven out, or because of separation, judicial separation or the husband's death (Prabha Tyagi; Krishna Bhattacharjee).
• Divorce ends the relationship prospectively: violence during the marriage remains actionable, but later acts are not domestic violence under the Act (Juveria; Inderjit Singh Grewal).
• A family member who voluntarily and permanently establishes a separate household elsewhere, over a long period, may cease to be in a domestic relationship with those left behind (Vijay Verma), and property disputes between such persons belong in civil courts.
• A relationship in the nature of marriage ends when the parties cease to live together with that character; the woman may still seek relief for violence during it.

8. Related Topics and Provisions