Case Analysis: Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma AIR 2014 SC 309

Author: Rishika Ramchandra Boddu.

CITATION

2104 SC 309

NAMES OF PARTIES

Appellant: Indra Samra;

Respondent: V.K.V. Sarma.

JUDGES

Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan;

Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.

INTRODUCTION

In comparison to the western world, live-in relationships are relatively new in India, yet they are gradually becoming common. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, as well as any other statute, don’t recognise it. The Supreme Court has been influential in promoting gender equality and defending the rights of women. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma is a landmark judgement which was appealed before The Supreme Court. This case focuses on the role of the women in the relationship, her rights and claims, and her locus standi in a civil lawsuit against a married male and these were all extensively covered in this judgement. In this case, in order to determine whether a specific live-in relationship falls under the concept of “relationship in the nature of marriage,” the court established certain guidelines.

This case is about live-in relationship with a married man, domestic violence and maintenance in this kind of relationship. In this case analysis, we will see that the judgement given by the Supreme Court is justified or not. This article mainly focuses on all aspects of live-in relationships, maintenance in the eyes of law, also about the current situation of live-in relationships in India and why people aren’t accepting it.

FACTS

• Indra Sarma was an unmarried woman quit her job and started a live-in relationship with a married man named V.K.V Sarma. They continued to be in a live-in relationship for 18 years despite knowing that Mr. Sarma was married and had children.
• He established a company in her name, and they were making money from it. Later, he moved the business to his home and continued it there with the assistance of his son, denying her the opportunity to work and earn money.
• It was claimed that V.K.V Sarma left the company of the appellant without supporting her financially because his family consistently opposed their live-in relationship and ultimately forced him to do so.
• Failure to support a woman who is involved in a “domestic relationship” is considered “domestic violence” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

ISSUES

1. Whether a live-in relationship would qualify as a domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, which defines a domestic relationship as having characteristics of marriage.
2. Whether terminating a relationship like that by failing to take care of the woman who is a part of it qualifies as domestic violence under the Act.

JUDGEMENT

Contentions of the Appellant

According to the appellant, the respondent used to make her use contraceptives in an attempt to prevent pregnancy. The respondent took a significant amount of money from the appellant to open a beauty parlour for his wife as well as to purchase property in her name. It was argued that their relationship is qualified as a marriage-like relationship for the purposes of Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The learned attorney further argued that because the high court relied on the ruling of the case D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal((D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal Nos. 2028-2029 of 2010)) and the tests outlined in that case had also been satisfied.

Contentions of the Respondent

By denying all the allegations, Mr. V.K.V. stated that the Appellant’s brother gave his approval for the abortion since it was harmful to the Appellant’s health. It was argued that a live-in relationship is included under the definition of “domestic relationship” since the Domestic Violence Act is intended to protect the interests of women generally and does not restrict itself to relationships of the marriage-type. It was argued that the parties’ connection would not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” and that the parameters established in the Velusamy case had not been met. In addition, the appellant was aware that the respondent was already married and the parties lacked the legal ability to enter into marriage.

Held

The Court states that in order for there to be a marriage, there must be these mentioned conditions met by the parties: they must agree to be married, live together as husband and wife, and declare their union to others. This implies that, despite the fact that it might not be legally binding, a “relationship in the nature of marriage” must possess some fundamental and inevitable characteristics of marriage.
The Court makes reference to a few potential relationships that might qualify for the DV Act’s protection in order to further support its observation. Domestic relationships involving same-sex partners are not covered by Section 2(f) because they fall outside the purview of the Act. The court also stated that there is a need to broaden the section 2(f) of the Act which defines the phrase “Domestic Relationship”. However, domestic relationships involving an unmarried man and an unmarried woman would be.

The guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as follows:

• Duration of the relationship’s initial phase – According to Section 2(f) of the DV Act, the phrase “at any point of time” refers to a fair amount of time to sustain and continue a connection, which may differ from case to case.
• The phrase shared household is defined under the Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
• Resource pooling and financial arrangements – In order to maintain a long-term relationship, they need to assist each other financially.
• Domestic Arrangements- putting the burden of running the household on the woman.
• Sexual Relationship – Sexual interactions that are not simply for fun but also for emotional support and childbearing.
• Children – This is a significant sign of a committed partnership, such as a marriage.
• Public Socialisation – Misleading the public into believing that they are a married pair.
• Parties’ Intention and Behaviour – Common understanding between the parties regarding the nature of their relationship and the duties each bear.

ANALYSIS

The first authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court on the meaning of the term relationship in the nature of marriage or live-in relationships in the context of the 2005 Act appeared in 2011 in the case of D. Velusamy and then in 2013 in the Indra Sarma case. Incidentally, both judgments related to claims of maintenance. The Supreme Court of India ruled that live-in relationships, which can last for a long time and result in standards of interdependence and uncertainty, must be adequately protected due to the rise in live-in relationships, especially for women and those children who are born out of such relationships. So, in this case, the appellant already knew that the respondent was married and she had the option of not entering into such a relationship. If a child was born as a result of their relationship, it is evident that she may have been entitled to maintenance because their relationship would have the characteristics of marriage. Also, I’m in favour of the court that section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 should be broadened, the explanation needs to be clear and same-sex partners should be covered in this Section.

The Domestic Violence Act and the specific facts of the case are taken into consideration by the court when determining maintenance in a live-in relationship. There is no provision for a male to make a maintenance claim in the event that a live-in relationship fails, but a woman can. There have been cases where individuals have engaged into such relationships, abused their companions, and abandoned them. Therefore, there is a need for a set law to protect the partners who rely on another individual for a living. However, the law needs to provide equal protection and maintenance surety for both men and women.
Currently in India, there is no law that specifies the obligations and rights of the parties in a live-in relationship or the legal status of any children they may have. Although, the societal acceptance about this concept may take few years because there are people who are not accepting this concept because live-in relationships will result into pre-marital sex which is not acceptable by the society, they consider it as a sin.

CONCLUSION

In this landmark case, it was held that a live-in relationship of a married man with a woman or of a married woman with a man is not recognized, as in the nature of marriage because the couple had no marriage-like behaviours in the entire duration of their relationship.
About the maintenance, there must be a certain amount of accountability and responsibility to guarantee that the partner whether male or female is experiencing financial difficulty receives assistance and accommodation. In this case, the judgement is not justifiable, there is no law regarding live-in relationships and hence, there is an immediate need for the parliament to make laws.

We might take some time to accept this concept because in India, where marriage is seen as a holy bonding and a couple can only live together after getting married, the idea was hurtful to the country’s social and cultural traditions. But in few years, we will consider live-in relationships, and they will coexist with legally recognised marriage as we are adopting some of the western culture.