The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 extends meaningful civil protections to women in “relationships in the nature of marriage” - the formulation introduced at Section 2(f) of the Act and fleshed out by the Supreme Court across two decades of cases. Many couples in live-in arrangements do not realise the protection is available to them. Others assume it requires formal recognition. It does not. This piece walks through what §2(f) covers, the four Velusamy indicia the courts apply, and the five substantive reliefs that follow.
What does “relationship in the nature of marriage” mean under §2(f)?
§2(f) of the PWDV Act defines a “domestic relationship” to include relationships by consanguinity, marriage, adoption, members of a joint family, and “relationships in the nature of marriage”. The last formulation is the one that brings live-in arrangements within the Act. The statute itself does not define the phrase further; the definition has been built through case law.
What are the Velusamy indicia?
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Supreme Court set out four indicia for a relationship in the nature of marriage:
- The couple must hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses
- They must be of legal age to marry
- They must be otherwise qualified to enter a legal marriage
- They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out as spouses for a significant period of time
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) refined these further, particularly emphasising that the relationship must have the “inherent or essential characteristics of a marriage”, that pure casual or one-off arrangements do not qualify, and that the woman’s knowledge of any subsisting marriage of the partner is a relevant factor in whether the relationship is in the nature of marriage at all. The combined effect of the two judgments: not every live-in is a relationship in the nature of marriage, but a great many are.
What reliefs does a qualifying live-in partner get under the Act?
If §2(f) applies, the woman in the relationship can seek the following civil reliefs from a Magistrate under the Act:
- A protection order restraining the partner from acts of domestic violence (which the Act defines broadly to include physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse)
- A residence order securing her right to live in the shared household, regardless of who legally owns it
- Monetary relief - maintenance, medical expenses, loss of earnings, compensation for items destroyed, taken, or damaged
- A custody order with respect to any children of the relationship
- A compensation order for mental torture and emotional distress
The reliefs are civil. They do not require the partner to be prosecuted for any criminal offence first. They are available from the local Magistrate’s court and can be sought within 60 days of the matter being filed, with interim orders frequently passed at the first hearing.
Can a live-in agreement waive PWDV protection?
No. PWDV protection cannot be contracted away. A live-in agreement that purports to waive these rights is, to that extent, void. A well-drafted agreement says so on the face of the document - recording what the parties have agreed about money and property, and explicitly preserving the statutory floor. The agreement and the statute sit on different floors of the same building.
What does the joint-family clause of §2(f) cover?
The other limb of §2(f) - “members of a joint family” - is the route through which daughters-in-law have brought PWDV claims against their husband’s family members, not only the husband. Where a live-in couple has moved into the partner’s natal family home, the daughter-in-law-equivalent provisions can also be invoked. The doctrinal terrain here overlaps with the field we have written on at when the in-laws are the divorce.
The protection is structural. The agreement is contractual. They sit on different floors of the same building.
What does Partlee do?
Where the live-in arrangement is being entered into, the panel drafts a written agreement and explains, on the page, what the PWDV statutory floor preserves. Where the arrangement has reached a point of conflict and the woman’s safety is at issue, the priority-safety match for women routes the matter to an empanelled advocate experienced in PWDV proceedings, ahead of any civil negotiation. Safety is the precondition, not the outcome.