{"id":1032,"date":"2020-04-23T10:30:42","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=1032"},"modified":"2021-01-17T11:19:45","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T11:19:45","slug":"live-in-relationships-are-covered-under-the-purview-of-domestic-violence-act-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/live-in-relationships-are-covered-under-the-purview-of-domestic-violence-act-2005\/","title":{"rendered":"Live-in relationships are covered under the purview of Domestic Violence Act 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Daniyal Qureshi | Symbiosis Law School Pune | 27th March 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shikarini v. Hitendra Chudasmi Decided on 27\/2\/2020 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge who revered the order of the learned JMFC filed the present appeal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the JMFC it was contended by the appellant that the appellant is the wife of the respondent and that her marriage with the respondent according to Hindu Rituals and that the respondent has committed domestic violence against the appellant and the son born out this marriage. The appellant alleges that the respondent never took care of their son and even attempted to take the child\u2019s life by throwing him from the roof. Therefore, filing for maintenance and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 On the contrary the respondent contends that the marriage between the respondent and the appellant was a nullity as the appellant already had a husband living in Andhra Pradesh from whom she had not obtained a valid divorce at the time of the solemnization of the marriage between the respondent and the appellant and therefore she had no right to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent also contends that the claim for maintenance had exceeded its period of limitation of one year as the appeal has been filed one year after the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The respondent also contends that under the definition of \u201caggrieved person\u201d in Section 2 of the Domestic Violence Act does not encompass a child therefore the claim for maintenance in the present appeal does not stand. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issue <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether the appellant and her son are entitled to maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act 2005?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judgement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n