‘Woman in relationship with married man can’t claim relief under DV Act’

MUMBAI: The Bombay heights margaret court on fri ruled that a adult female who knowingly enters into a human relationship with a married man is not entitled to relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005.A single-judge bench of justice Manjusha Deshpande said such a relationship does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”. Granting maintenance or monetary relief in such cases, the court said, would adversely affect the legally wedded wife and children of the man.The woman, an engineer, claimed that she was in a relationship with her married college professor, who allegedly forced her into sexual relations from 2001. She further stated that they “got married” in 2005, while the professor’s first marriage was still valid.According to her, the man had gained her sympathy by falsely claiming that his wife was mentally ill and that divorce proceedings were underway. She further claimed that they lived together briefly as husband and wife, jointly purchased property and vehicles, and underwent IVF treatment in 2008, which resulted in the birth of a child.Subsequently, after their relations soured, the woman approached a magistrate court in Pune, invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the DV Act. In March 2015, the court directed the professor to pay the woman ₹28,000 per month as maintenance and ₹5 lakh as compensation, while also restraining him and his first wife from harassing her.However, in July 2016, the Pune sessions court struck down the order, prompting the woman to move the high court, where she highlighted the joint ownership of properties, a bank account, and the IVF records to assert that she was the man’s wife.In the high court, advocate Narayan Rokade, representing the woman, argued that her relationship with the man comes within the definition of a “relationship in the nature of marriage” and that the man should not be allowed to go scot-free.Refuting the claims, advocate Sujay Gangal, representing the man, contended that there was no “domestic relationship” between the two and that they never lived together in the flat they jointly purchased.“At the most, the relationship can be termed as an extra-marital relationship, which does not come within the purview of a relationship in the nature of marriage,” Gangal said. He added that the woman’s income was much higher than that of the man, and she does not need any kind of financial support.Dismissing the petition, the court held that the relationship “holds no legal sanctity” since the woman already knew that the man was married and had a child from his first marriage. Justice Deshpande observed that merely purchasing joint properties or spending some days together does not make it “a relationship in the nature of marriage” under the DV Act.The court also noted that the man had disputed the claim that a child was born out of their relationship, and that the woman had failed to prove that he had projected her to be his wife in public.“Their relationship fails to qualify the characteristics and requirements of a relationship in the nature of marriage and, therefore, the woman is not entitled to protection under the Act”, the court concluded.