Bombay High Court Denies Domestic Violence Act Protection in Live-In Relationship with Married Man Court Rules Relationship with Knowledge of Marital Status Not "In the Nature of Marriage"
In a significant ruling on January 9, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Manjusha Deshpande, held that a live-in relationship with a married man, where the woman is aware of his marital status, does not qualify as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This decision came in response to Writ Petition No. 3946 of 2016, where the petitioner, Sheetal Chandrakant Kunjir, sought relief under the Act against Chandrakant Tukaram Kunjir, with whom she was in a relationship.
The court observed that for a relationship to be considered "in the nature of marriage," both parties must be unmarried and otherwise eligible to enter into a legal marriage. Justice Deshpande referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, which outlined essential criteria for such relationships under the Act.
The petitioner alleged that she entered into a relationship with the respondent, a professor at her college, based on his false assurances of divorce from his wife. Despite cohabiting and having a child, the court found that these factors alone were insufficient to categorize their relationship as a marriage-like relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act.
The court underscored that awareness of the man's marital status negates the claim of a marriage-like relationship. Justice Deshpande emphasized that the Act does not currently offer protection for relationships resembling concubinage or mistresses, suggesting the need for legislative amendments to address such gaps.
This ruling clarifies the boundaries of the Domestic Violence Act, reinforcing that relationships entered with full awareness of a partner's existing marriage do not qualify for protections aimed at marriage-like partnerships.
Bottom Line:
A live-in relationship with a married man, where the woman is aware of the marital status of the man, does not qualify as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the Act, and such a relationship is not entitled to protection under the said Act.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 2(f), 20.
Sheetal Chandrakant Kunjir v. Chandrakant Tukaram Kunjir, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2835364
