I could not make sense out of it. Even though Supreme Court ruled so much in a recent judgment on Khushboo’s case that live-in relationships are a reality in society, the Delhi HC judgment in a PWDVA (Domestic Violence Act) case below seems to put all burden on men of initiating and perpetuating a live-in relationship. Actually, it says an assumption can fairly be drawn. On what common sense, or any other basis was this assumption drawn is of course a mystery. What is not a mystery is that many court decisions will continue to treat women as children without a will or decision making capability of their own, when the issue at hand is granting some relief to women.
Read my maintenance book (DV and CrPC 125) if you want to save HARD EARNED money
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to the definition of “domestic
relationship” contained in Section 2(f) of the Act. He has strenuously objected to the
placing of married persons on the same platform as those in a relationship in the nature of marriage. We find no reason why equal treatment should not be accorded to wife as well as woman who has been living with a man as his common-law wife or even as a mistress. Like treatment to both does not, in any manner, derogate from the sanctity of marriage since an assumption can fairly be drawn that a “live-in relationship” is invariably initiated and perpetuated by the male. Once again, we do not rule out the exception but such cases would be rare to find, thus obviating the need of Parliament to provide protection to the male victim. The Court should also not be impervious to social stigma which always sticks to women and not to the men, even though both partake of a relationship which is only in the nature of marriage.