A many other countries. However v. Hennessey 87 Wn.2d 550 (1976); Pennington 93 Wash. App. at 917 Stack & Ors.

A many other countries. However, in order to provide a remedy in Civil Law for protection of women, from being victims of such relationship, and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society, first time in India, the DV Act has been enacted to cover the couple B having relationship in the nature of marriage, persons related by consanguinity, marriages etc. For the first time, through, the DV Act, the Parliament has recognized a "relationship in the nature of marriage" and not a live in relationship simplicitor. [Para 52 and 53) [1067-C-D, HJ c

2.9. When one examines whether a relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, one should have a close analysis of the entire relationship, in other words, all facets of the interpersonal D relationship need to be taken into account. One cannot isolate individual factors, because there may be endless scope for differences in human attitudes and activities and a variety of combinations of circumstances which may fall for consideration. Invariably, it may be a question E of fact and degree, whether a relationship between two unrelated persons of the opposite sex meets the tests judicially evolved. [Para 54) [1068-A-C] Lata Singh v. State of UP. AIR 2006 SC 2522: 2006 F (3) Suppl. SCR 350 - referred to. Re Marriage of Lindsay, 101 Wn.2d 299 (1984); Litham v. Hennessey 87 Wn.2d 550 (1976); Pennington 93 Wash. App. at 917 Stack v. Dowden (2007) 2 AC 432; MW v. The Department of Community Services (2008) HCA 12; Lynam G v. The Director-General of Social Security (1983) 52 ALR 128; Thompson v. Department of Social Welfare (1994) 2 SZLR 369 (HC) - referred to. The Civil Partnership Act, 2004 and the Family Law H Act, 1996 (United Kingdom); The Domestic Violence INDRA SARMA v. V.K.V. SARMA 1027 Intervention Act, 2001 (Canada); The Violence Against A Women Act, 1994 (USA); The Interpretation Act, 1984 (Australia); The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act, 2012 (Queensland) andThe Property (Relationships) Act, 1984 of North South Wales, Australia - referred to.

#3. The following guidelines may be culled out for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will C definitely give some insight to such relationships. B (1) Duration of period of relationship Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression "at any point of time", which o means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation. (2) Shared household The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration. (3) Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements E F Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the G name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor. H 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A (4) Domestic Arrangements Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. (5) Sexual Relationship Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc. (6) Children Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long stan~ing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication. (7) Socialization in Public Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong cir:cumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage. (8) Intention and conduct of the parties Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, B c D E F G H INDRA SARMA v. V.K.V. SARMA 1029 primarily determines the nature of that A relationship. [Para 55] [1068-D-H;1069-A-H; [1070-A] B

4.1. Status of the appellant: In the case at hand, the appellant, admittedly, entered into a live-in-relationship with the respondent knowing that he was married person, with wife and two children, hence, the generic proposition that where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law presumes that they are living together in consequence of a valid marriage will not apply and, hence, the C relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, and the status of the appellant was that of a concubine. A concubine cannot maintain a relationship in the nature of marriage because such a relationship will not have D exclusivity and will not be monogamous in character. The continuous cohabitation of man and woman as husband and wife may raise the presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabition is a rebuttable one and if there are circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them. Polygamy, that is a relationship or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while already married to another and/or maintaining an adulterous relationship that is having voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person who is not one's husband or wife, cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage. [Para 56) [1070-B-H] E F G

4.2. In the instant case, there is no necessity to rebut the presumption, since the appellant was aware that the respondent was a married person even before the commencement of their relationship, hence the status of the appellant is that of a concubine or a mistress, who H 1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage. Long standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserve protection because that woman might not pe financially independent, but the DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and exhaustive. [Para 57] [1071-A-C] B

4.3. The Parliament has to ponder over these issues, C bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and the children, born out of such kinds of relationships be protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage. [Para 62] [1072-F-G] D

4.4. The appellant was not ignorant of the fact that the respondent was a married person with· wife and two children, hence, was party to an adulterous and bigamous relationship. Admittedly, the relationship E between the appellant and respondent was opposed by the wife of the respondent, so also by the parents of the appellant and her brother and sister and they knew that they could not have entered into a legal marriage or maintained a relationship in the nature of marriage. F Parties never entertained any intention to rear children and on three occasions the pregnancy was terminated. Having children is a strong circumstance to indicate a relationship in the nature of marriage. No evidence has been adduced to show that the parties gave each other G mutual support and companionship. No material has been produced to show that the parties have ever projected or conducted themselves as husband and wife and treated by friends, relatives and others, as if they are a married couple. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the appellant that the respondent had never held H INDRA SARMA v. V.K.V. SARMA 1031 out to the public that she was his wife. No evidence of A socialization in public has been produced. There is nothing to show that there was pooling of resources or financial arrangements between them. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the appellant that the respondent had never opened any joint account or B · executed any document in the joint name. Further, it was also submitted that the respondent never permitted to suffix his name after the name of the appellant. No evidence is forthcoming, in this case, to show that the respondent had caused any harm or injuries or c endangered the health, safely, life, limb or well-being, or caused any physical or sexual abuse on the appellant, except that he did .not maintain her or continued with the relationship. [Para 63] [1072-H; 1073-A-FJ Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation 1978 (3) SCC D