Landmark Judgments

8.1 Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) — SC

Facts: The aggrieved person had been in a live-in relationship for over 18 years. The respondent later married another woman. Held: The relationship constituted a "relationship in the nature of marriage" and the woman was entitled to protection under PWDVA 2005.

Ratio: Laid down 6 factors to determine whether a live-in relationship qualifies under the Act — duration, shared household, pooling of resources, financial arrangements, domestic arrangements, children.

8.2 S.R. Batra & Another v. Taruna Batra (2006) — SC

Held: The shared household is the matrimonial home — not every house owned by the husband or his relatives. The wife cannot claim a right of residence in property belonging solely to her in-laws.

Impact: Narrowed the scope of Section 17 — later partially corrected by Satish Ahuja.

8.3 Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020) — SC 3-Judge Bench

Held: Overruled S.R. Batra to the extent that the definition of "shared household" in Section 2(s) must be given its plain meaning. If the aggrieved person and her husband lived in the house belonging to in-laws, it becomes the shared household. The ownership of the in-laws does not defeat her right under Section 19.

Significance: This significantly expanded the protection under Section 17/19.

8.4 D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) — SC

Held: Not all live-in relationships are "relationships in the nature of marriage." To qualify, the couple must: (a) hold themselves out publicly as a couple; (b) be of legal marriageable age; (c) be unmarried or legally separated; (d) have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period. A "keep" arrangement or casual relationship would not qualify.

8.5 V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012) — SC

Held: The Act applies even to relationships that existed before the Act came into force in 2006. The aggrieved person is entitled to protection even if the domestic violence occurred before the commencement of the Act.

---