Delhi District Court
Suneet Agnihotri vs Seema Srivastava on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 322/2024
PS- Badarpur
U/Sec. 29 PWDV Act
In the matter of :-
Suneet Agnihotri
S/o Sh. N. K. Agnihotri
Aged about 56 years
R/o F-121, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh - 201002
.... Appellant
Versus
Seema Shrivastav
D/o Late Madan Prasad Shrivastav
R/o H. No. 228,
Madhuram Apartment, Badarpur,
South Delhi - 110044.
Also at :-
Seemaz Beauty Parlour,
C-98/15, B Block, Sector 41,
Noida, UP.
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 05.10.2024
Date of Arguments : 16.12.2025
Date of pronouncement : 24.01.2026
Decision : Appeal dismissed.
Impugned Order Stands upheld.
CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 1 of 20
JUDGMENT
1. This is a criminal appeal U/Sec 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act) by the husband/appellant Suneet Agnihotri against the order dated 04.09.2024 (hereinafter referred as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. Trial Court in CT Case No. 1381/2022 titled as "Seema Shrivastava vs. Suneet Agnihotri", vide which the application filed by the appellant / respondent U/s 2(a),(f),(q),(s) R/w Section 13 DV Act was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court.
2. In order to avoid any confusion, both the parties will be referred with the same nomenclature with which they were referred before Ld. Trial Court, in my subsequent paragraphs.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of present appeal as mentioned in appeal, are as follows :-
"The complainant has stated in her complaint that she got married to respondent Suneet Agnihotri on 08.03.2005 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Shivji Temple, Bhanger, Salarpur, near Yatharth Hospital, Noida, Uttar Pradesh in the presence of family members, relatives and friends. that the marriage between the parties was duly consumated and a male child namely Neil Agnihotri was born. That within one year of the marriage the respondent started harassing, torturing and inflicting extreme cruelty against the complainant. it has been alleged that the complainant and accused were both working in Noida in one company namely Allied Garment Factory in the year 2003 and they met during the aforesaid period of their CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 2 of 20 service. further, the accused introduced himself by misrepresenting that his wife had died and he was living alone and gradually befriended the complainant and assured of giving the complainant a prestigious life. It is stated that the complainant originally belonged to Bihar and was minor at that time and was living with her sister and due to misrepresentation of respondent and accepted his proposal for marriage. Further, the respondent committed various acts of cruelty and also maintained continuous sexual intercourse with the complainant knowing well that she was a minor and was hardly 15 years of age. After marriage complainant started residing with the respondent and on 31.05.2007 a child was born who was named Neil Agnihotri. After the birth of the child the behavior of the respondent changed towards the complainant and he started ignoring the complainant and deserted the complainant with the minor child. Further, during the period of 1 year of marriage, the complainant was abused and assaulted by complainant and after birth of child the respondent would even hit the minor child. subsequently the complainant came to know that the respondent was already married with one woman namely Asha and he had 3 children from his first marriage. further, the eldest daughter of the respondent was around 18 years i.e. the age of the complainant and thereby respondent committed cheating upon the complainant and concealed the true facts. Subsequently, due to the aforesaid facts complainant was socially humiliated and when complainant confronted the respondent he assaulted, abused and harassed the complainant. On several occasions complainant was threatened and even her sister Kajal Shrivastav was threatened by the respondent. The complainant also filed a complaint U/s 156(3) CrPC against the respondent and due to the aforesaid mental, physical, emotional torture by the respondent she filed her complaint under the DV Act.
CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 3 of 20 further the child of the complainant is currently in school and that complainant does not have means to support the minor child and herself and has sought maintenance."
4. The complainant filed her complaint before the Ld. Trial Court on 04.08.2022. Domestic Incident Report (DIR) was called from the Protection Officer by Ld. Trial Court wherein, various incidents of domestic violence have been narrated and complainant has stated that since 2008 till 2013 on various occasions respondent had physically assaulted her, slapped her and ill treated her under the influence of liquor. Further, that the complainant came to know regarding the first marriage of respondent only in year 2013 and since then the respondent has been extending threats to the complainant as well as to the minor child. It is further stated that in the year 2030 the respondent took away with him the marriage photographs and all other documents of the complainant and ignored the complainant as well as the minor child. Further since December, 2013 the respondent left the shared household and deserted the complainant and her minor son and even gave beatings to the complainant 4 to 5 times thereafter. On 17.05.2014 the complainant filed her complaint U/s 156(3) CrPC which is pending trial before the Ghaziabad Court.
5. Thereafter, the Ld. Trial Court upon considering the DIR report summoned the respondent vide order dated 06.11.2022 and respondent appeared before the trial court on 21.03.2023 and on 08.08.2023 filed an application U/s 2(a),(f),(q),(s) R/w Section 13 DV Act. Subsequently, upon hearing arguments dismissed the aforesaid application of the CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 4 of 20 respondent vide impugned order dated 04.09.2024.
6. Feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, respondent/husband/appellant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds :-
A. Ld. Trial Court has failed to recognize the issue of shared household and domestic relationship has to be decided at the threshold and its not a matter of trial and has labeled the bonfide legal plea and preliminary objections of the appellant as vexatious and attempt to delay proceedings and went on to impose the cost on preferring an application under relevant sections is contrary to law laid down by Madras High Court and reliance is placed in the case of Dr. P. Pathmanathan vs Tmi. V. Monica, Madras High Court, 2021.
B. The complainant has failed to prima facie establish the fact of alleged marriage between her and the appellant. The Complainant has alleged that the Appellant herein, had married her on in 2005, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, the Complainant has not been able to bring a single piece of evidence to substantiate the Fact of alleged marriage between her and the Appellant. Neither any marriage certificate nor any photographs has been furnished by her to corroborate her allegations. In view of the above, it is argued that the Appellant herein had never entered into any marriage or Live-In-Relationship with the Complainant at any point of time as he was duly married in 1994, and had established family, constituting his wife and 3 children. The fact as to the marriage and the family of the Appellant is not disputed, as the Complainant was aware of this since inception. So, there existed nothing between the Appellant herein and the complainant, apart from a casual relationship for the time being.
C. That the complainant has failed to establish prima facie that she is "aggreived person" in terms of PWD Act, which are, being in any domestic relationship with the respondent, at some point of time, and other is, to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. Relaince Placed: Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another - I(2014) 10 SCC 736], CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 5 of 20 "this Court while interpreting the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act held that apart from the woman, who is in a domestic relationship, any woman who has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent, if alleged to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent comes within the meaning of aggrieved person. Further, Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act states that a person aggrieved (widow herein) who, at any Point of time has lived together with the husband in a shared household is covered by the meaning of domestic relationship. Also, Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act states that if the person aggrieved at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a house, can claim a right in a shared household."
D. Further that the complainant admitted that was not in legal age of marriage at the time of alleged relationship which is contary to law laid down by apex court. Relaince Placed: D. Velu Samy v. D. Patchaiammal - |(2010) 10 SCC 469), "this Court discussed the concept of "relationship in the nature of marriage" in the context of the DV Act, and it was held to be akin to a common law marriage. It was held that the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act. It was opined that not all live-in relationships would amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of D.V. Act, but only to such relationships, which qualify as common law marriages. The requirements prescribed under law in order for a relationship to be recognized as a common law marriage were adumbrated as follows:
(i) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses,
(ii) They must be of legal age to marry;
(ili) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage;
(iv They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a 'domestic CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 6 of 20 relationship'.
34. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage'.
E. Further that the complainant has failed to establish the existence of any "domestic relationship" between her and the appellant at any point of time. That, living together in a "Shared Household", by being related through consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, is Sine-Qua-Non to establish that "Aggrieved person" and the "Respondent" had lived in a "Domestic Relationship". However, the complainant had failed to specify or establish the duration or time period, during which she and the Appellant herein, had lived in domestic relationship. Relaince Placed : Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja - I(2021) 1 SCC 414] "68. The words lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship' have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to give a higher right in favour of woman. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act." F. That the complaint had failed to establish the fact as, when and where she had lived in shared household with the appellant. That the complainant has just made a bald statement that she and the Appellant herein had lived together in a shared household, without even specifying, the time period during which they lived together, the address or whereabouts of the place of residence. In this regard it is argued, that the complainant has severely failed in that behalf as allegations put forth by her, are bereft of any evidence, CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 7 of 20 whatsoever. The complainant has just put forth very generic allegations and had not specified the Address or whereabouts of the place where she had lived in a "Shared Household" with the Appellant. Apart from it, she had failed to specify the duration during which she had lived with the Appellant in the Shared Household"
Reliance Placed: Sonia Khurana v Pradeep Khurana, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 506, decided on 25-01-2024 "In order to claim any substantive benefit or relief, in terms of Sec- 17 & 19 of PWDV Act, It remains incumbent upon the "Aggrieved Person" to prima facie establish that she had lived in "Shared Household", with the "Respondent" person at any point of time.
24. What is 'shared household' has been defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act, which reads as under:
"(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. "
25. The provisions of Section 17 and 19 of the Act reads as under:
"17. (1) Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. (2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.
19. (1) While disposing of an application under subsection (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order-
(a) restraining the respondents from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 8 of 20 equitable interest in the shared household;
(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;
restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;
(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing of the shared household or encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:
Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman."
G. Ld. magistrate had failed to appreciate the undisputed fact of the existing marriage of the appellant, so there could not have been any subsequent valid marriage of the appellant with the complainant. H. That the Ld. magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant has not been able to disclose a prima facie case of domestic violence in a domestic relation within the four corners of the shared household-, any specific dates or place of domestic violence. The allegations of domestic violence are clearly bald allegations without any date, time and place. Even if the allegations are taken on its face value, the same are only to be seen once the factum of shared household, domestic relationship and duration of such relationship is established.
I. That the Ld. magistrate erringly held that the establishing the fact of residing in shared household with the aggrieved person in a domestic relationship is a matter of trial. That the Ld. Magistrate had erred in reaching to the above-mentioned conclusion, as in order to claim any substantive relief under the PWDV Act, it was incumbent upon complainant to prima facie establish that she had actually resided in a shared household in a domestic relationship with the Appellant. The fact of residing in a "Shared household"
of the "Respondent" with the "Aggrieved Person" in a "Domestic Relationship" is sine qua non to even launch a case for any relief whatsoever, so it can't be a matter of Trial by any stretch of imagination. It is further argued, that reverse burden will only be cast upon the Appellant, only if CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 9 of 20 complainant is at least prima facie able to establish her case. J. The ld. magistrate had exceeded her jurisdiction by making observation as to the date and time when the appellant had allegedly deserted the complainant. That the Ld. Magistrate has made an observation as to a particular fact in the impugned order, which had neither been pleaded nor argued by any of the party. Further that there is no factual basis to above- made observation as no such fact has been mentioned or pleaded by the complainant, neither in her complaint and nor in reply to the application, that when did the domestic relationship end or date and the appellant herein had deserted the complainant, on such and such date.
K. That the Ld. Magistrate had exceeded her jurisdiction by taking the address mentioned on the date of birth certificate of the son of the complainant, to be the address of the shared household of the appellant and the complainant, on her own accord. That the Ld. Magistrate had erroneously taken the address mentioned on the Date of birth certificate of the son of the complainant, to be the address of the "Shared Household" of the appellant and the complainant, which incorrect on multiple limbs and thereby suffers from the perversity on multiple limbs. Because no such residential property had existed in that relevant portion of the time frame, at that address. As per the Record of the Govt, as to the ownership and nature of the property, following is the trajectory to the ownership, nature of property and the development of the above-mentioned property from 2000 to 2012. L. That the complainant had never shown the appellant as her husband in sale and purchase documents and shown herself as bachelor- That the Complainant/Respondent herein, has purchased multiple properties on her name throughout the years from 2012 to till now, but in all her documents she has not shown the name Appellant as her husband and also shown herself as bachelor.
7. In addition to the aforesaid grounds, Ld. Counsel for husband/ appellant has argued that the complaint filed by the complainant is vexatious and devoid of merit. Further, the allegations of the complaint are false and fabricated and that the marriage between the parties had never taken place as the complainant has failed to place on record any CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 10 of 20 proof pertaining to the marriage. Further, the appellant had never entered into marriage or live in relationship with the complainant as he was already married in the year 1994. Further, that the complainant has failed to prove any domestic relationship on shared household with the appellant. It has also been argued that the complainant has failed to prove that she has any "relationship in the nature of marriage" as in the context of DV Act and the complainant is not the aggrieved person as she is not related to the respondent in any manner and all the averments in the complaint are false and devoid of merit. It has also been argued that the complainant and respondent did not live with each other at any point of time and the complainant has not mentioned regarding any place of residence where they lived together. It has been argued that 'shared household' the parties have to show the place where they have lived together in the past, which in the present case was first in No. 51/17, East Punjabi Bagh and thereafter in Kirti Nagar, the rental accommodation. The appellant has accused that the respondent deliberately shifted her to the Kirti Nagar tenanted accommodation, whereas the respondent has asserted that he had shifted there in order to save their married life. It has been argued that admittedly, the matrimonial home to which the complainant had come after her marriage was House No. 51/17, East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, which was owned by the parents of the respondent and thereafter, admittedly they had been residing in the rented accommodation at Kirti Nagar, Delhi. However, the complainant is claiming a right of shared residence in House No. 4/12, Punjabi Bagh Extension, Delhi which is the house of the brother of the respondent which had been purchased by him vide CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 11 of 20 Sale Deed dated 18.03.2010. Therefore, the said property was purchased two years after the parties shifted to the Kirti Nagar rental accommodation in February, 2008. It has been argued that there is no averment whatsoever in the entire pleading or in any application that the house of the brother of the respondent is a "shared household". In the absence of there being any averment of her having ever lived in that No. 4/12 Punjabi Bagh Extension, the appellant cannot claim "Right to residence" in the said house. It has also been argued that since the marriage did not take place between the parties, no offence under Domestic Violence Act is made out and further documents placed on record by complainant itself shows that she was minor at the alleged time and there was no occasion for the appellant to have solemnized marriage with her.
8. Ld. counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal SCC Online SC 469 para 31.
"In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married :-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 12 of 20 In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a `shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a `domestic relationship'."
9. Ld. counsel also relied upon the judgment of Indra Sarma vs. V. K. V. Sarma SCC online SC 755 para 38, 56, 66.
"Appellant, admittedly, entered into a live-in-relationship with the respondent knowing that he was married person, with wife and two children, hence, the generic proposition laid down by the Privy Council in Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wiketunge Liyanapatabendage Balshamy, AIR 1927 PC 185, that where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law presumes that they are living together in consequence of a valid marriage will not apply and, hence, the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, and the status of the appellant was that of a concubine. A concubine cannot maintain a relationship in the nature of marriage because such a relationship will not have exclusivity and will not be monogamous in character. Reference may also be made to the judgments of this Court in Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation 1978 (3) SCC 527 and Tulsa v. Durghatiya 2008 (4) SCC 520. In Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231 this Court held that the continuous cohabitation of man and woman as husband and wife may raise the presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabition is a rebuttable one and if there are circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them. Polygamy, that is a relationship or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while already married to another and/or maintaining an adulterous relationship that is having voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person who is not one's husband or wife, cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage.
57. We may note, in the instant case, there is no necessity to rebut the presumption, since the appellant was aware that the respondent was a married person even before the commencement of their relationship, hence the status of the appellant is that of a concubine or a mistress, who cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage. Long CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 13 of 20 standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and exhaustive.
58. Velusamy case (supra) stated that instances are many where married person maintain and support such types of women, either for sexual pleasure or sometimes for emotional support. Woman, a party to that relationship does suffer social disadvantages and prejudices, and historically, such a person has been regarded as less worthy than the married woman. Concubine suffers social ostracism through the denial of status and benefits, who cannot, of course, enter into a relationship in the nature of marriage."
10. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of complainant that the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant with the intention to harass the complainant and the same is liable to be dismissed. It has been argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 by which the application of appellant was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court as same was passed after considering the averments made in the complaint. It has further been argued that the complainant is an aggrieved person as defined under the Domestic Violence Act as it was the appellant who married the respondent on 08.05.2005 and from wedlock child named Neil Agnihotri was born on 31.05.2007 and on the adhar card and date of birth certificate of the child the name of appellant and respondent has been mentioned and now it is the appellant who is denying the marriage and the paternity of the child. It has been argued that the complainant has been deceived by the appellant and deserted by him and it is due to her poor background she was unable to file her complaint. Further, from the contents of the CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 14 of 20 complaint, her application U/s 12 DV Act is maintainable and application moved on behalf of appellant has been rightly dismissed. Ld. counsel for the complainant had denied all averments made in appeal and stated that same are matter of trial.
11. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for complainant/ appellant and have carefully perused record including Trial Court Record.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that proceedings under the DV Act are judicial proceedings and once an application under Section 12 discloses a prima facie case, the Magistrate is required to issue Notice to the respondent in terms of Section 13 of the DV Act.
13. The basic issue before this Court is that, whether the marriage was solemnized between the parties and the child born was deserted by the appellant after the marriage. Further, it has been argued by the appellant that since the appellant was already married and was having 3 children, he had never solemnized marriage with complainant and had never lived with her in a shared household. Further, that they never shared any relationship in nature of marriage and also complainant has not been resided in the shared household ?
14. To decide the case in hand, I am guided by the judgment titled as Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755, by Hon'ble Apex Court (Supra), wherein it has been held that :-
CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 15 of 20
55. We have already stated, when we examine whether a relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, we should have a close analysis of the entire relationship, in other words, all facets of the interpersonal relationship need to be taken into account. We cannot isolate individual factors, because there may be endless scope for differences in human attitudes and activities and a variety of combinations of circumstances which may fall for consideration. Invariably, it may be a question of fact and degree, whether a relationship between two unrelated persons of the opposite sex meets the tests judicially evolved.
56. We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will definitely give some insight to such relationships.
56.1 Duration of period of relationship Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression "at any point of time", which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.
56.2 Shared household The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.
56.3 Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.
CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 16 of 20 56.4 Domestic Arrangements Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.
56.5 Sexual Relationship Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc. 56.6 Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication. 56.7 Socialization in Public Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage.
56.8 Intention and conduct of the parties Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily determines the nature of that relationship.
15. In this case, as per the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant and the respondent have stayed together at H. No. 101, Bhatta Colony, Bhangel, Noida, Uttar Pradesh after marriage. Further, the complainant and the appellant lived with each other as husband and wife. Further a child named Neil Agnihotri was born on 31.05.2007, which prima facie indicating a relationship of financial interdependence CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 17 of 20 and pooling of resources with the complainant. Further, both the parties have had a sexual relationship between them and have one child born out of the same. The aggrieved person and the children were dependent upon the respondent for their financial and emotional needs.
16. Therefore, having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Further, the Respondent has taken up the financial and other responsibilities of the child and has stood as their father throughout their lives and also gave them shelter in a rented accommodation and had borne all the financial responsibilities towards the complainant and the child till they cohabitate together i.e. till the year 2013. The Respondent has also allowed his name to be put down as father of the child in all governmental documents of the child including his Aadhaar Card, date of birth certificate. Further, as per complaint case, the birth certificate of the child Neil Agnihotri also mentions the name of the appellant.
17. The complaint of complainant further alleges that when the child was born the respondent started ignoring her and started absenting him from the house. Further, in the year 2013 the appellant quarreled with the complainant, gave her beatings and took away all the documents pertaining to the marriage alongwith photographs of marriage from the complainant and therefore it can be assumed at this stage that the complainant is not in possession of any document with regard to marriage ceremonies.
CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 18 of 20
18. Therefore, prima facie, the respondent not only given the child of the parties his identity as his children but has also mutually agreed upon and taken up duties and responsibilities relating to said child and had maintained household and the complainant as his "wife" for all social purposes which falls squarely within the ambit of a relationship in the nature of marriage, as envisioned by the DV Act, in view of the aforesaid case law.
19. In view of Indra Sarma (supra), the relationship between the parties cannot be treated as a legally valid marriage but relationship in the nature of marriage. However, the existence of a domestic relationship and shared household is prima facie established for the limited purpose of the DV Act as the Act is a beneficial legislation and courts may still grant limited reliefs to prevent injustice. The material on record prima facie establishes that the aggrieved person was subjected to economic abuse, emotional neglect, and abandonment, which squarely falls within the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act. Further, it is evident from the record that the aggrieved person resided with the respondent at the premises mentioned in the DIR report, which qualifies as a shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act.
20. I am of the considered view that the question of existence of domestic relationship between the parties is a question of fact and should be concluded on the basis of facts establishes on the basis of evidence tendered by the parties. Therefore, in the present case, the CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 19 of 20 complainant/ appellant must be given the chance to prove the relationship through evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that valid marriage is not mandatory for invoking DV Act remedies.
21. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid appreciation and record of this case, I am of the considered view that the application under the DV Act filed by the complainant before Ld. Trial Court, is maintainable. The impugned order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, stands upheld.
Digitally signed
by Sheetal
Sheetal chaudhary
chaudhary Date: 2026.01.24
Announced In The 15:59:49 +0530
Open Court Today
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
24.01.2026(m)
CA No. 322/2024 Suneet Agnihotri vs. Seema Srivastava Page no. 20 of 20