Relationship In Nature Of Marriage Enough For Maintenance Under DV Act: Bombay HC reiterates

The Bombay High Court has upheld an order granting enhanced maintenance to a woman and her minor son under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, holding that even in the absence of strict proof of a legally valid marriage, material on record indicating a relationship in the nature of marriage and cohabitation is sufficient to attract the protections of the Act.

The Court reiterated that the DV Act is a progressive social welfare legislation intended to secure immediate and effective remedies for women in domestic relationships, and that its benefits are not confined only to women who can conclusively establish a formally valid marriage.

Justice Abhay S. Waghwase, while dismissing cross revision applications filed by the husband as well as the wife and son, affirmed the appellate court’s decision enhancing maintenance from Rs. 3,000 per month each to Rs. 6,000 per month each for the wife and minor child.

The Court held that no patent illegality or perversity had been demonstrated in the concurrent findings of the courts below, and that in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, interference is warranted only where there is glaring error, non-compliance with law or miscarriage of justice.

Finding none, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed both revision applications.

The proceedings arose from an application filed by the woman under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, alleging that she had performed a temple marriage with the respondent in 2007 and that a son was born out of the relationship.

She claimed that after initially treating her properly, the respondent subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, assaulted her during pregnancy, and ultimately drove her out of the house.

She asserted that she had no independent source of income, whereas the respondent was employed in the Police Department and earning a regular salary along with other income sources.

The husband resisted the claim by denying the very existence of a marital relationship and disputing paternity of the child.

He alleged that the documents produced by the woman were fabricated and also relied on evidence relating to her previous marriage, seeking to discredit her claim of a subsisting and valid marital tie.

Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the JMFC partly allowed the application, awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month each to the wife and son along with compensation and costs.

On appeal, the Sessions Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 6,000 per month each while maintaining the remaining directions. Both sides approached the High Court in revision.

The High Court noted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, propriety or correctness of the findings and not to undertake a fresh re-appreciation of evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence.

Referring to settled principles governing revision, the Court emphasised that interference is justified only in cases of patent illegality or miscarriage of justice.

On merits, the Court examined whether a “domestic relationship” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act was made out.

The woman had placed on record photographs, complaints made to the police and Women Grievance Redressal Cell, school records of the child reflecting the respondent’s name, and testimony of relatives supporting her claim of cohabitation and a temple marriage.

Though there was no formal proof of dissolution of her earlier marriage or strict proof of a legally valid second marriage, the Court found that there was sufficient material to indicate that the parties had lived together and shared a relationship akin to marriage.

The Court relied on precedents of the Supreme Court recognising that the DV Act extends protection even to women in relationships in the nature of marriage.

It observed that the Act is intended to protect women “irrespective” of the exact legal status of their relationship, provided there is evidence of cohabitation in a shared household.

The Court reiterated that a man cannot be permitted to take advantage of technicalities or legal loopholes after enjoying the benefits of a de facto marital arrangement, and then evade corresponding responsibilities.

In this backdrop, the High Court concluded that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence and that the appellate court was justified in enhancing maintenance considering the respondent’s earning capacity.

The husband had failed to demonstrate any perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings. Accordingly, both revision applications were dismissed.

Interim protection was continued for a period of six weeks to afford the petitioner an opportunity to approach the Top Court.

Case Title: Janardhan s/o Bhimrao Harne v. Rekha w/o Janardhan Harne & Anr. (with connected Criminal Revision Application No.103 of 2021)

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

Date of Judgment: 16.02.2026