A Bench comprising Justices Vikramjit Sen and P K Bhasin has come to this conclusion on the presumption that invariably a “live-in” relationship with a woman would be on the initiation of the man.
The Division Bench stressed that it had found no compelling reasons to measure a legally-wedded woman and a live-in partner, both facing the ugly ends of domestic violence, with two yardsticks.
“Like treatment to both (wives and mistress) 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,” the court said.
The judgment clears the air on the meaning of the term “aggrieved person” under the ‘Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act of 2005’ to its true sense as “any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent (man) and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.”
Women involved in a live-in relationship, but victims of domestic violence, are twice at a disadvantage owing to the “social stigma which sticks to them and not the men”, said the Bench, adding that the court ought not to be “impervious” in this regard.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by a man to quash an FIR filed under the Act by a woman, who, he alleged, was not legally married to him. He alleged that the statute only provided succour for complaints instituted by a legally-wedded woman.
“Like treatment to both (wives and mistress) does not, in any manner, derogate from the sanctity of marriage... It is not unconstitutional for the Parliament to provide for protection to a woman in a relationship akin to marriage, along with and juxtaposed to the protection given to wives and legitimate children,” said the court, rubbishing the man’s claim that granting of equal rights to both a wife and a live-in partner would “diminish” the rights of the former.
The Bench further justified providing money, meant for a wife, to a battered live-in partner for her sustenance. “In unfortunate and uncomfortable situations like these, if the protection given to unwedded women results in the diminution of funds available for maintenance of the legally wedded wives and the legitimate children, such diminution would not render the statute unconstitutional,” it said.
Dismissing his challenge on the constitutional validity of the Act as “discriminatory to the male community”, the court said: “There is perception, not unfounded or unjustified, that the lot and fate of women in India is an abjectly dismal one...The argument that the Act is ultra vires the constitution because it accords protection only to women and not to men is, therefore, wholly devoid of any merit.”