Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

The Delhi High Court ruled that two individuals living together in a shared household in a relationship "in the nature of marriage" qualify as being in a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act,2005.  

• Justice Amit Mahajan observed that such relationships fall within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Act.  
• The court set aside a sessions court order that had dismissed the wife's domestic violence complaint, acknowledging her allegations of cruelty and disputes over the legitimacy of her marriage. 

What was the Background of X v. Y Case? 

• Anamika Chandel filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging marriage to Dr. Naresh Chandel on 22nd April 2006 and subsequent domestic violence in their shared household for seven years. 
• Dr. Naresh Chandel contested the marriage claim by producing a Friendship Agreement dated 13th April 2006, which acknowledged his existing marriage to Mrs. Kavita and their child. 
• The respondent also presented evidence showing Anamika's marriage to his brother, Vijay Kumar, on 28th March 2006, supported by a marriage certificate dated 03.04.2006. 
• Anamika countered by claiming an earlier marriage to Dr. Naresh on 25th February 2006, substantiated by a marriage certificate dated 07th May 2014 from Shree Vishno Mata Mandir Samiti. 
• The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed Dr. Naresh's application questioning the maintainability of the complaint. 
• Dr. Naresh successfully appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the Metropolitan Magistrate's order and dismissed Anamika's complaint. 
• According to Anamika, Dr. Naresh coerced her into showing marriage to his brother Vijay Kumar to avoid bigamy charges, as he was already married to Mrs. Kavita. 
• The marriage certificate of 03rd April 2006 and Friendship Agreement of 13th April 2006 were allegedly part of a conspiracy to protect Dr. Naresh from bigamy prosecution. 
• Both parties were purportedly married to different individuals when their alleged marriage took place on 22nd April 2006. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court observed that domestic relationship under the DV Act encompasses not only marriages but also relationships in the "nature of marriage" where parties share a household. 
• At the initial stage of determining maintainability, the court must consider allegations and factual content on a demurrer basis. 
• Documents presented by the respondent disputing the marriage cannot be accepted as conclusive truth at the preliminary stage without proper evidence. 
• The court noted that the petitioner's seven-year cohabitation in a shared household constitutes a domestic relationship, either as a married couple or in marriage. 
• The defense challenging the domestic relationship status requires evidential examination and cannot be determined at the preliminary stage. 
• The court found the Additional Sessions Judge's judgment was erroneous and restored the complaint to its original number before the Family Court. 
• The court directed the matter to proceed in accordance with law, considering the observations made in the present judgment. 

What is DV Act? 

• The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a social beneficial legislation enacted on 26th October, 2006, specifically designed to protect women from all forms of domestic violence and provide effective protection of their constitutional rights. 
• The Act takes a comprehensive view of domestic violence, covering physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse through any act, omission, or conduct that harms or endangers women's health, safety, life, or well-being. 
• It provides concrete remedies by establishing legal mechanisms for women to enforce their rights to residence, maintenance, custody, protection, and compensation when facing domestic violence. 
• The Act considers harassment, threats, or coercion related to dowry demands or other property as forms of domestic violence, making it a broad and inclusive piece of legislation. 
• The preamble of the Act explicitly states that all forms of violence occurring within the family must be addressed and redressed through this statute, making it a holistic legal framework. 
• The legislation serves both protective and remedial functions by not only safeguarding women from ongoing violence but also providing mechanisms for compensation and rehabilitation of victims. 

What is Section 2(f) of DV Act? 

• Section 2(f) of the Act defines domestic relationships. 
• A domestic relationship is legally recognized when two persons live or have lived together in a shared household, and their relationship falls under any of these categories:  
  • Consanguinity (blood relation) 
  • Marriage, relationship in the nature of marriage 
  • Adoption, or  
  • As family members in a joint family. 
• The definition is intentionally broad and inclusive, encompassing not just formal marriages but also live-in relationships that are in the nature of marriage, thereby extending protection to women in various types of domestic arrangements. 
• The key elements that must be satisfied are:  
  • (a) Living together in a shared household at any point in time. 
  • (b) The existence of one of the specified types of relationships between the parties. 

What is Section 12 of the DV Act? 

• Section 12 of DV Act deals with the application of Magistrate. 
• An aggrieved person, Protection Officer, or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person can file an application before the Magistrate seeking relief under the DV Act. 
• The Magistrate must consider any domestic incident report received from the Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order on such application. 
• The relief sought may include compensation or damages, without prejudicing the aggrieved person's right to file a separate civil suit for compensation. 
• If a court decree for compensation exists in favor of the aggrieved person, any amount paid under the Magistrate's order shall be adjusted against the decree amount. 
• The decree shall be executable for the remaining balance amount after such adjustment, notwithstanding any provisions in the Civil Procedure Code or other laws. 
• Every application must be filed in the prescribed form and contain specified particulars as required by law. 
• The Magistrate must schedule the first hearing within three days from the date of receiving the application. 
• The Magistrate should strive to dispose of the application within sixty days from the date of its first hearing. 
• The section aims to provide expeditious relief to victims of domestic violence through the judicial process. 
• The provision ensures coordination between civil court decrees and magistrate orders regarding compensation to prevent double benefit while ensuring complete relief to the aggrieved person.