Family Law

Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma

(2013) 15 SCC 755

Facts

Indra Sarma and V.K.V. Sarma worked in the same organisation.
They lived together for a lengthy period of approximately fourteen to eighteen years.
The man was already legally married and had two children.
Indra knew about his existing wife and children when she entered the relationship.
The legally wedded wife and children opposed the relationship.
Indra alleged that:
she gave up employment;
became financially dependent;
underwent several abortions;
was ultimately abandoned without maintenance.
A Magistrate awarded her ₹18,000 per month under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Sessions Court affirmed it.
The High Court set aside the award, holding that the relationship was not “in the nature of marriage.”
Indra appealed.

Whether a long-term live-in relationship with a man known to be already married constitutes a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act.
What factors distinguish such a relationship from other non-marital relationships?

Every live-in relationship is not automatically a relationship in the nature of marriage.
The claimant must establish characteristics substantially similar to marriage.
Relevant factors include:
duration of the relationship;
shared household;
pooling of financial resources;
domestic arrangements;
sexual relationship;
children;
public socialisation as spouses;
mutual intention, responsibilities and companionship;
legal capacity to marry.
No factor is independently conclusive; the total relationship must be examined.
An unmarried woman who unknowingly enters a relationship with a married man may, in some circumstances, receive protection.
Knowledge of an existing marriage and absence of public or financial marital characteristics may prevent the relationship from qualifying.

The Court accepted that the relationship was long and that Indra had become vulnerable.
Length alone, however, could not transform every arrangement into marriage.
The evidence showed:
she knew the respondent remained legally married;
his wife and children consistently opposed the relationship;
the respondent did not publicly hold Indra out as his wife;
no joint bank accounts or jointly owned property were shown;
there was no clear pooling of resources;
the parties lacked legal capacity to marry while the first marriage subsisted.
The Court considered the legally wedded wife and children, whose existing marital and financial rights would also be affected by an order.
It therefore classified the relationship as outside the statutory expression “in the nature of marriage.”
The judgment nevertheless acknowledged a serious protection gap.
A woman may spend many years in a relationship, lose earning opportunities and become financially dependent, yet fall outside the Act because the technical requirements are absent.
The Court urged Parliament to consider protective legislation for such women and children.
Some of the judgment’s descriptions of the woman are now regarded as harsh, but its operative legal test remains the multi-factor inquiry into whether the relationship possesses essential marital characteristics.

The appeal was dismissed.
The relationship did not qualify as one in the nature of marriage under Section 2(f).
The maintenance order under the DV Act could not be sustained.
The Court called for legislative protection of women left vulnerable by excluded live-in relationships.
Use this case for: the factors determining whether a live-in relationship is legally “in the nature of marriage.”