Relationship in the Nature of Marriage and Live-In Relationships under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The DV Act was one of the first Indian statutes to extend legal protection beyond marriage. By including a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' within the definition of domestic relationship, it allows a woman in a live-in relationship to seek protection, residence, maintenance and compensation. But not every relationship between a man and a woman who live together qualifies. The Supreme Court has drawn the line in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), and in Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026) it has carried the same concept into the criminal law of cruelty. This note explains what qualifies, what does not, and what remedies follow.

1. Relationship in the Nature of Marriage

Section 2(f) recognises a domestic relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household when they are related 'through a relationship in the nature of marriage'. The phrase is not defined. The words 'in the nature of' indicate that the relationship need not be a legal marriage, but must resemble one in its essential character: a stable, exclusive, cohabiting partnership in which the parties conduct themselves as spouses. The Act thus protects women who are in marriage-like relationships without the formal status of a wife, a situation that, before 2005, left them without remedy for violence, eviction or abandonment.

2. Live-In Relationships in Indian Law

A live-in relationship is an arrangement in which two adults live together without marriage. Indian law does not treat such a relationship as illegal or immoral. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, the Supreme Court held that adults are free to live with whomever they choose; in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600, it held that a live-in relationship between consenting adults is not an offence; and in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 602, it recognised the right of adults to live together even without marriage. Long cohabitation may also give rise to a presumption of marriage (Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527; Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520; Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan (2022)), now under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. But live-in relationships range from casual arrangements to lifelong partnerships, and only some of them are 'in the nature of marriage'.

At the State level, the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, in force from January 2025, requires registration of live-in relationships in that State, treats children of such relationships as legitimate, and allows a woman deserted by her live-in partner to claim maintenance. It operates only in Uttarakhand and does not alter the DV Act tests.

3. Distinction from Legal Marriage

The crucial difference is that marriage is a status created by a legal act, while a relationship in the nature of marriage is a fact proved by conduct. That is why proof matters so much in live-in cases.

4. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal

The judgment's reference to a 'keep' has been criticised as demeaning; the Supreme Court's Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes (2023) discourages such language. The substance of the four tests, however, remains the law.

5. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma

6. Characteristics of a Domestic Partnership

6.1 Duration and stability

There is no fixed minimum period, but the relationship must be reasonably long and continuous to show commitment. A few weeks or months of cohabitation will rarely suffice; several years of stable life together usually will. Stability also implies exclusivity: a relationship in which the man divides his time between several households is less likely to qualify.

6.2 Holding out as spouses

The parties must present themselves to family, neighbours, employers and society as husband and wife or as a committed couple equivalent to spouses. Evidence includes introducing each other as spouses, joint attendance at family events, documents naming the partner as spouse or nominee, and the perception of the community.

6.3 Legal capacity

Both parties must be of legal age to marry and otherwise qualified: neither should be married to someone else, and they should not be within prohibited degrees of relationship. This requirement is what excluded the appellant in Indra Sarma.

6.4 Financial and domestic arrangements

Pooling of resources (joint accounts, jointly acquired property, long-term investments, the man's financial support of the woman and children) and domestic arrangements (running the home together, the woman managing the household) indicate a marriage-like partnership. Mere sharing of rent between flatmates does not.

6.5 Children

Having children together is a strong indication of a long-term, marriage-like relationship. Independently of the DV Act, the Supreme Court has recognised that children born of long cohabitation may inherit, and children of void and voidable marriages have been held entitled to share in their parents' property (Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023).

7. Casual Relationships and Relationships Involving Married Persons

7.1 Casual relationships

Casual relationships, such as dating, occasional cohabitation, weekend arrangements or a purely sexual relationship, are not in the nature of marriage (Velusamy). The woman in such a relationship may have other remedies (criminal law for assault or cheating, civil law for property) but not under the DV Act, because there is no domestic relationship.

7.2 Relationships involving married persons

Where the man is already married and the woman knows it, the relationship does not qualify (Indra Sarma): the parties lack legal capacity, and the law will not treat a second, parallel relationship as marriage-like at the cost of the lawful wife. The position is different where the woman was deceived into believing that the man was unmarried or that she was his lawful wife. In Indra Sarma itself, the Court indicated that such a woman may be protected, and the same distinction was reiterated in Lokesh B.H. (2026). A woman who went through a ceremony of marriage that turns out to be void may likewise rely on the relationship in the nature of marriage, subject to proof of good faith.

8. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026): The Criminal Law Dimension

9. Available Remedies

Once a relationship in the nature of marriage is established, the woman is an aggrieved person and her partner (and, after Hiral P. Harsora, his relatives who shared the household) a respondent. She can claim all the reliefs available to a wife:

• Protection orders (Section 18): restraining further violence, contact and alienation of assets.
• Residence (Sections 17 and 19): the right to reside in the shared household in which she lived with her partner, and residence orders restraining dispossession or directing alternative accommodation or rent.
• Monetary relief and maintenance (Section 20): expenses, losses and maintenance for herself and the children.
• Custody (Section 21) of children, and compensation (Section 22) for injuries including mental torture and emotional distress.
• Interim and ex parte orders (Section 23).

9.1 Residence

The shared household is defined by where she lived with her partner in the relationship, irrespective of who owns it (Section 2(s); Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414). Where the partner has left and the house belongs to him, she may be protected from dispossession; alternatively the Magistrate may direct him to secure alternative accommodation of the same level or to pay rent under Section 19(1)(f).

9.2 Maintenance

The DV Act is often the only route to maintenance for a live-in partner, since Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) speaks of a 'wife'. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141, the Supreme Court favoured a broad reading of 'wife' where a man and woman had lived together as husband and wife, and referred the question to a larger Bench. In Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 13 SCC 796, a three-Judge Bench observed that even if a woman in a live-in relationship cannot claim under Section 125, she can claim maintenance and other reliefs under the DV Act, which is a more effective remedy. The quantum follows the principles in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

10. Proof of the Relationship

Because a relationship in the nature of marriage is a matter of fact, the woman must prove it by evidence that maps onto the Velusamy and Indra Sarma tests: documents showing a common address over a period; joint accounts, leases or property; photographs and correspondence; the partner naming her as spouse or nominee in official records; children's birth certificates naming both parents; and testimony of neighbours, relatives and colleagues that they lived as husband and wife. Long cohabitation may raise a presumption of marriage under Section 119 BSA, which, even if rebutted as to legal marriage, supports the finding of a marriage-like relationship. On the other side, the respondent will seek to show a subsisting marriage known to her, the casual or intermittent nature of the relationship, or separate households.

11. Related Topics and Provisions