The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects women in a "domestic relationship" — a term Section 2(f) defines to include not only marriage but also a "relationship in the nature of marriage". That phrase is the gateway through which live-in partners claim protection orders, residence rights and monetary relief. The Supreme Court's decision in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (26 November 2013) remains the touchstone for deciding which relationships cross the line, laying down functional indicators — duration, shared household, pooled finances, domestic arrangements, children, and public presentation as spouses — while cautioning that not every cohabitation qualifies. This explainer sets out the framework as it operates in Delhi's magistrate and sessions courts.
The statutory gateway: Section 2(f)
Section 2(f) of the DV Act defines a domestic relationship as one between two persons who live, or have at any point of time lived together, in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or joint family membership. The deliberate inclusion of relationships "in the nature of marriage" makes the DV Act one of the few Indian statutes that squarely protects women in live-in relationships — but the phrase demands more than shared premises.
The Indra Sarma indicators
In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Supreme Court identified guideposts for testing whether cohabitation amounts to a relationship in the nature of marriage. None is individually decisive; together they paint the functional picture courts look for.
| Indicator | What courts examine |
|---|---|
| Duration | A reasonable period of shared life, assessed case by case rather than by a fixed number of years |
| Shared household | Living together in a household within the meaning of Section 2(s) |
| Pooling of resources | Joint accounts, shared investments, property acquired in joint names, financial interdependence |
| Domestic arrangements | Division of household responsibilities in the manner of a marital home |
| Children | Having and raising children together — a strong indicator of marriage-like intent |
| Socialisation in public | Holding out to friends, relations and society as being akin to spouses |
| Intention and conduct | The parties' common understanding of what the relationship was to be |
Where claims fail
Indra Sarma itself illustrates the boundary. The appellant had lived with the respondent for years — but she had entered the relationship knowing he was married, there were no surviving children, no joint finances were proved, and the couple had not been held out publicly as spouses. The Court held the relationship did not qualify, describing the status as outside the marriage-like category the statute protects. The lesson is not that such women are undeserving of any remedy; it is that the DV Act's special machinery presupposes a relationship functionally resembling marriage — exclusivity, commitment and social recognition matter.
Litigating the issue in Delhi courts
Points often misunderstood
Three clarifications recur in practice. First, the woman need not prove a valid marriage to claim monetary relief or a residence order — that is precisely what the "nature of marriage" category exists for. Second, the DV Act's civil reliefs operate independently of any question of maintenance under other statutes; a woman who cannot invoke matrimonial legislation for want of a marriage may still obtain Section 20 relief if the relationship qualifies. Third, the respondent's existing marriage is a serious obstacle: knowledge that one partner was already married has weighed heavily against treating the relationship as marriage-like, as Indra Sarma shows.
This article is an informational overview of the statutory framework and reported precedent; it is not legal advice. The application of the Section 2(f) test is intensely fact-specific, and outcomes vary with the evidence in each case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a live-in partner file a DV Act complaint?
Yes, if the relationship qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" within Section 2(f). The woman must show the parties lived together in a shared household in a relationship bearing the functional characteristics of marriage, assessed on the Indra Sarma indicators.
Does every live-in relationship qualify?
No. In Indra Sarma itself the Supreme Court denied protection where the woman had knowingly entered a relationship with a married man; the Court described the relationship as lacking the exclusivity and mutual commitment that characterise marriage. Each case turns on its own facts.
What reliefs can a qualifying live-in partner claim?
The full menu of the DV Act: protection orders under Section 18, residence orders under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, custody orders under Section 21 and compensation under Section 22. Maintenance under Section 20 does not depend on proving a valid marriage.
What evidence helps establish the nature of the relationship?
Proof of continuous cohabitation in a shared household, joint financial arrangements, birth of children, social and family recognition of the couple, travel and residence records, and correspondence showing the parties held themselves out as spouses. Duration alone is relevant but not decisive.