No legal protection for live-in relationship if male partner is below 21 years

Live-in relationships occupy a legally complex space in India. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have over the years recognised that a live-in relationship that resembles a marriage in its character and stability may attract certain legal protections, particularly under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, this recognition is not unconditional. A recent ruling has drawn a firm line: a live-in relationship involving a male partner who is below 21 years of age, the minimum age for a valid marriage for males in India, cannot qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage under Section 2(f) of the PWDVA and therefore attracts no legal protection under that Act. The reasoning is simple and principled: what the law does not permit directly cannot be protected indirectly.

Facts of the case

The case arose from a situation where a woman filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming protection and relief on the basis of a live-in relationship she had with a male partner. The woman alleged that she had been in a stable cohabiting relationship with the male partner, that they had lived together as husband and wife for a period of time, and that she had suffered domestic violence at his hands during the course of that relationship.

The critical factual detail that determined the legal outcome was the age of the male partner at the time the relationship was in existence. The male partner was below 21 years of age, which is the minimum legal age for a male to contract a valid marriage in India under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the earlier Child Marriage Restraint Act. The male partner and those defending him argued that since he was below the legal marriageable age for males, the relationship could not be characterised as one in the nature of marriage for the purposes of Section 2(f) of the PWDVA.

The woman countered that the PWDVA is a protective legislation intended to safeguard women in domestic relationships and that its provisions should be interpreted broadly and purposively to include her situation. The question of whether a live-in relationship with a male below 21 years could attract the protection of the PWDVA as a relationship in the nature of marriage came before the court for determination.

Issue before the court

1. Whether a live-in relationship in which the male partner is below 21 years of age, the minimum age prescribed for a valid marriage for males in India, can qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, so as to entitle the female partner to the protections available under that Act.

2. What was the correct interpretation and application of the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal (2010) for a live-in relationship to qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage. In particular, whether the condition that both parties must be of legal age to marry is an absolute precondition or merely a factor to be weighed alongside others in a holistic assessment.

3. Whether the protective purpose of the PWDVA could override the specific legal conditions for a relationship in the nature of marriage, and whether courts should adopt a purposive interpretation that extends protection to relationships that do not meet all the D. Velusamy conditions in the interest of protecting vulnerable women from domestic violence.

Arguments before the court

The woman argued that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for the protection of women from violence in domestic relationships. The definition of domestic relationship in Section 2(f) includes relationships in the nature of marriage, and the court should interpret this provision broadly and purposively to include her situation. She contended that she had lived with the male partner as his wife, had suffered domestic violence at his hands, and was exactly the kind of person the Act was designed to protect. The age of the male partner was a technical matter that should not be used to deny her the protection that the legislature clearly intended to extend to women in live-in relationships resembling marriage. A rigid application of the age condition would leave many women in vulnerable situations without any remedy under the Act.

The male partner argued that the Supreme Court in D. Velusamy (2010) had expressly laid down that both parties must be of legal age to marry as a condition for a live-in relationship to qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage under the PWDVA. This is not a discretionary factor but an absolute precondition. Since he was below 21 years, the minimum age for a valid marriage for males, this condition was not satisfied. A relationship that would have been legally impermissible as a marriage because of the parties' ages cannot be treated as equivalent to a marriage for the purpose of attracting PWDVA protection. The principle that the law does not permit indirectly what it prohibits directly applies with full force. The PWDVA cannot be used to confer legal recognition on a relationship that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act would render legally impermissible.

Analysis of the court

The court began by examining Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which defines domestic relationship to mean a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family.

The court noted that the expression relationship in the nature of marriage is the key phrase in the context of live-in relationships. It is not defined in the Act itself. The Supreme Court in D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal (2010) filled this gap by laying down specific conditions that must be satisfied before a live-in relationship can be characterised as one in the nature of marriage. Among these conditions, the court in Velusamy expressly held that both parties must be of legal age to marry. This condition is not incidental or aspirational. It is a substantive requirement that reflects the law's understanding of what it means for a relationship to be in the nature of marriage.

The court reasoned that a relationship in the nature of marriage must, by definition, resemble a valid marriage in its essential character. A valid marriage in India requires the parties to be of the legally prescribed minimum age. For males, that age is 21 years under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. For females, it is 18 years. If either party is below the legal age, the marriage itself would be impermissible under Indian law. A live-in relationship that would have been legally impermissible as a marriage cannot claim the legal protection that the law extends to relationships in the nature of marriage.

The court also addressed the argument that the PWDVA should be interpreted broadly in the interests of protecting women. It acknowledged the protective purpose of the Act but held that purposive interpretation has limits. Courts cannot use the protective purpose of a legislation to override the express conditions that the legislature and the Supreme Court have identified as prerequisites for the application of that legislation. If the D. Velusamy conditions are not met, there is no relationship in the nature of marriage, and the PWDVA simply does not apply. The protective purpose of the Act cannot create a relationship in the nature of marriage where the legal conditions for one are absent.

The court further noted that this ruling does not leave the woman entirely without legal remedy. If she has suffered domestic violence, she may have remedies under the Indian Penal Code or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, or hurt. The ruling only holds that the specific framework of the PWDVA, which is designed for domestic relationships and relationships in the nature of marriage, is not attracted where the male partner is below the legal age for marriage.

Concluding Remark

This ruling is a principled application of the D. Velusamy framework to a specific factual situation. It confirms that the PWDVA's protection for live-in relationships is not unlimited and does not extend to relationships that would have been legally impermissible as marriages. This is not a harsh outcome. It is a logical one. The law cannot simultaneously prohibit a marriage because one party is below the legal age and protect a live-in equivalent of that marriage as though the age bar did not exist.

Frequently asked questions

1. What is a relationship in the nature of marriage under Section 2(f) PWDVA?

Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines domestic relationship to include relationships in the nature of marriage. The Supreme Court in D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal (2010) held that a live-in relationship qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage only if both parties hold themselves out as spouses, are of legal age to marry, are otherwise qualified to marry, and have cohabited together for a significant period. All conditions must be satisfied together.

2. What is the minimum age for marriage in India and why does it matter for live-in relationships?

Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the minimum age for marriage is 21 years for males and 18 years for females. This age requirement matters for live-in relationships because the D. Velusamy conditions require both parties to be of legal age to marry for the relationship to qualify as one in the nature of marriage under the PWDVA. If the male partner is below 21 years, this condition fails and the PWDVA protection is not available.

3. Can a woman claim maintenance under the PWDVA from a live-in partner who is below 21 years?

No. Since the live-in relationship with a male below 21 years does not qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage under the PWDVA, the woman cannot claim the remedies available under the Act, including maintenance orders under Section 20, residence orders under Section 19, or protection orders under Section 18. Her remedies must be sought under other applicable laws such as the IPC or BNS for any criminal offences committed against her.