Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, the appellant entered into a live-in relationship with the respondent knowing that he was a married person. A question arose before this Court as to whether the appellant could be said to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage. Negativing this contention, this Court held:

“The appellant, admittedly, entered into a live-in relationship with the respondent knowing that he was a married person, with wife and two children, hence, the generic proposition laid down by the Privy Council in Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy [(1928) 27 LW 678 : 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 Prasadv. Director of Consolidation [(1978) 3 SCC 527] and Tulsa v. Durghatiya [(2008) 4 SCC 520] .

 We may note that, 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. The long-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 the 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.