Can a Live-in Partner Seek Maintenance Under the Domestic Violence Act?
A common question in family law is whether a woman who has lived with a man without a formal marriage can seek maintenance after the relationship breaks down.
The answer is yes, in appropriate circumstances.
The Supreme Court has recognised that a woman who is not a legally wedded wife may still have an effective remedy under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
However, this does not mean that every live-in relationship automatically gives rise to a right to maintenance.
The relationship must satisfy the legal requirements of a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
The Supreme Court's Decision in Lalita Toppo
In Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court considered the position of a woman who was not a legally wedded wife.
The Court observed that even assuming that she was not a legally wedded wife and therefore was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she would still have an efficacious remedy under the Domestic Violence Act.
This is an important distinction.
The absence of a legally solemnised marriage does not necessarily mean that a woman is left without legal protection.
Why Does the Domestic Violence Act Apply?
The DV Act adopts a broader approach to domestic relationships.
Section 3 of the Act recognises different forms of domestic violence, including:
- Physical abuse
- Sexual abuse
- Verbal and emotional abuse
- Economic abuse
The Supreme Court specifically highlighted that economic abuse is included within domestic violence.
Economic abuse can include deprivation of financial resources, household necessities, payment of rent relating to the shared household and maintenance.
Therefore, maintenance is not completely outside the scope of the protection available under the DV Act.
Does Every Live-in Relationship Qualify?
No.
This is perhaps the most important qualification.
The law does not treat every relationship between two people who live together as a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
The Supreme Court has explained that the nature and circumstances of the relationship must be examined.
Factors such as the duration of the relationship, shared household and the nature of the relationship may be relevant.
The Court has also made it clear that merely spending weekends together or a one-night relationship would not constitute a domestic relationship for this purpose.
Therefore, simply describing a relationship as a “live-in relationship” is not sufficient by itself.
What Is a “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage”?
The expression is important because the DV Act extends protection to a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent, including a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Courts therefore examine the actual substance of the relationship rather than relying only on labels.
The circumstances may include questions such as:
How long did the parties live together?
Did they maintain a shared household?
Was the relationship stable and continuing?
Did the relationship have the characteristics of a marital relationship?
These questions are ultimately matters of fact and must be determined according to the circumstances of each case.
Maintenance Is Not the Only Relief
A proceeding under the DV Act is not limited to maintenance.
The Supreme Court in Lalita Toppo observed that the relief available under the DV Act could extend beyond what was contemplated under the then Section 125 CrPC, including relief relating to the shared household.
Depending upon the facts of the case, the DV Act provides a framework for seeking different forms of relief, including protection and monetary relief.
Therefore, a woman in a qualifying domestic relationship may have remedies beyond simply asking for a monthly maintenance amount.
What Does the 2026 Supreme Court Judgment Add?
The issue has received renewed attention in the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., decided on 3 August 2026.
The case principally concerned the applicability of Section 498A IPC to a live-in relationship which qualifies as a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” The judgment discusses the concept and the circumstances in which a live-in relationship may receive legal protection.
The judgment also discusses the earlier Supreme Court decisions concerning the meaning of a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the DV Act.
Importantly, the 2026 judgment reinforces the need to distinguish between an ordinary live-in arrangement and a relationship which possesses the attributes of marriage.
Does a Marriage Certificate Decide Everything?
Not necessarily.
For certain legal rights and statutory purposes, the existence of a valid marriage remains important.
However, the DV Act was enacted to provide protection against domestic violence and specifically recognises relationships in the nature of marriage.
Therefore, the question under the DV Act is not always simply:
“Was there a legally registered marriage?”
It may instead be:
“Did the relationship fall within the statutory concept of a domestic relationship and, in particular, a relationship in the nature of marriage?”
That distinction can be crucial when determining whether relief under the DV Act is available.
The Key Takeaway
A woman does not necessarily lose every legal remedy merely because she was not formally married to her partner.
The Supreme Court in Lalita Toppo recognised that a live-in partner may approach the appropriate forum under the Domestic Violence Act and seek relief, including maintenance, where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
At the same time, not every live-in relationship automatically qualifies.
The relationship must fall within the legal concept of a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
In simple terms:
No marriage certificate does not necessarily mean no legal remedy.
But:
A live-in relationship is not automatically treated as a marriage for every legal purpose.
The facts and nature of the relationship remain crucial.
Important Cases
Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand
Criminal Appeal No. 1656 of 2015
Supreme Court of India
30 October 2018.
Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2240–2241 of 2026
Supreme Court of India
3 August 2026.
Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for general awareness and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of every case depends upon its own facts, evidence, and applicable law.