The Bombay High Court has held that in order to claim any relief under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, relations between the woman and her partner must be in the nature of marriage. High Court Justice Mangesh S. Patil, Aurangabad bench dismissed a criminal revision application filed by a 30-year-old woman who sought the correct interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 after the Additional Sessions Judge Smt. S.S. Nair set aside an order of a Judicial Magistrate First Class stating that the respondent woman knew that the Appellant was a married person. She should not have entered into live in relationship with him. It is not the case of the respondent that she was victim of any fraudulent or bigamous marriage. The\u00a0relationship\u00a0between\u00a0the\u00a0parties would not fall within the ambit of \u201crelationship\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0nature\u00a0of marriage\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Bombay High Court has held that in order to claim any relief under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, relations between the woman and her partner must be in the nature of marriage. High Court Justice Mangesh S. Patil, Aurangabad bench dismissed a criminal revision application filed by a 30-year-old woman who soughtRead more about All Live-in Relationships Are Not Covered Under Provisions Of Domestic Violence Act: An Interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 By Bombay High Court<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions\/21"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}