16 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Co-Habitation In Shared Household In a Relationship ‘In Nature of Marriage’ is Domestic Relationship under DV Act

Case Title: X vs Y

Date of Order: 7th January, 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan

The Delhi High Court has determined that two individuals cohabiting in a shared household through a relationship "in the nature of marriage" are considered to be in a domestic relationship as defined by the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Amit Mahajan noted that such relationships are encompassed within Section 2(f) of the Act. The court overturned a previous ruling from a sessions court that had dismissed the wife's complaint of domestic violence, which included allegations of cruelty and disputes regarding the validity of her marriage.

Facts of the Case

Anamika Chandel lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming she married Dr. Naresh Chandel on April 22, 2006, and suffered domestic violence for seven years. Dr. Naresh disputed this by presenting a Friendship Agreement from April 13, 2006, which acknowledged his marriage to Mrs. Kavita and their child. He also provided evidence of Anamika's marriage to his brother, Vijay Kumar, on March 28, 2006, supported by a marriage certificate dated April 3, 2006. Anamika countered that her marriage to Dr. Naresh occurred earlier on February 25, 2006, with a marriage certificate dated May 7, 2014.

Initially, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed Dr. Naresh's application regarding the complaint's validity. However, upon appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge overturned this decision and dismissed Anamika's complaint. Anamika alleged that Dr. Naresh coerced her into claiming a marriage to Vijay Kumar to avoid bigamy charges due to his existing marriage. She contended that the documents presented by Dr. Naresh were part of a conspiracy to protect him from prosecution for bigamy, as both parties were reportedly married to different individuals at the time of their claimed marriage on April 22, 2006.

Delhi High Court’s Observation-

The court noted that the definition of a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act includes not only marriages but also relationships "in the nature of marriage" where individuals share a household. During the initial assessment of maintainability, the court must evaluate the allegations and factual content based on a demurrer standard. Documents presented by the respondent challenging the marriage claim cannot be regarded as definitive evidence at this preliminary stage without proper substantiation. The court emphasized that Anamika's seven years of cohabitation in a shared household qualifies as a domestic relationship, whether as a married couple or in a marriage-like arrangement. Any defense questioning the status of this domestic relationship necessitates an evidentiary review and cannot be resolved at the preliminary stage. The court found the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge to be incorrect and reinstated Anamika's complaint to its original position before the Family Court, directing that the case proceed according to legal protocols while considering the observations made in this ruling.

What is DV Act?

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, enacted on October 26, 2006, aims to safeguard women from various forms of domestic violence and uphold their constitutional rights. The Act comprehensively addresses physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse, defining domestic violence as any act that harms women's health or well-being. It establishes legal remedies for women to assert their rights concerning residence, maintenance, custody, protection, and compensation in cases of domestic violence.

The legislation includes harassment related to dowry demands as a form of domestic violence and emphasizes the need to address all familial violence through its provisions. It serves both protective and remedial roles by offering mechanisms for immediate safety and long-term rehabilitation for victims. The Act's broad definition of "aggrieved person" encompasses unmarried women and those in relationships resembling marriage, ensuring inclusive protection against domestic violence.

Section 2(f) of DV Act-

Section 2(f) of the Act defines a domestic relationship as one that is legally recognized when two individuals live or have lived together in a shared household, and their relationship fits into one of the following categories:

• Consanguinity (blood relation)
• Marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage
• Adoption
• Family members within a joint family

This definition is intentionally broad and inclusive, covering not only formal marriages but also live-in relationships that resemble marriage, thereby extending protection to women in various domestic arrangements. To qualify as a domestic relationship, two key elements must be met:

(a) The individuals must have lived together in a shared household at some point.

(b) There must be one of the specified types of relationships between the parties involved.

Section 12 of DV Act-

Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act outlines the procedure for filing applications with the Magistrate. An aggrieved person, a Protection Officer, or another representative can submit an application seeking relief under the Act. Before making any orders, the Magistrate must consider any domestic incident report provided by the Protection Officer or service provider. The relief sought may include compensation or damages, while preserving the aggrieved person's right to pursue a separate civil suit for compensation.

If a court has already issued a decree for compensation in favor of the aggrieved person, any amount awarded by the Magistrate will be deducted from that decree amount. The remaining balance of the decree will still be enforceable, regardless of other legal provisions. Applications must be filed in a prescribed format and include specific details as mandated by law. The Magistrate is required to schedule the first hearing within three days of receiving the application and aims to resolve it within sixty days of that initial hearing. This section is designed to provide prompt relief to victims of domestic violence while ensuring coordination between civil court decrees and magistrate orders regarding compensation, preventing double benefits while ensuring full relief for the aggrieved person.

2. Kerela High Court Directs State To Provide Reservations To Transgender Persons In Educational Institutions and Public Employment within 6 Months

Case Title: Kabeer C. vs. State of Kerela & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 28th November, 2024

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Justice P Krishna Kumar

A Division bench of the Kerala high Court has instructed the State Government to ensure reservations for transgender individuals. They emphasised that “the Government cannot postpone the implementation of transgender persons' rights regarding reservations.”

Facts of the Case

The petitioners in this case were transgender individuals who requested a mandamus directing the Government of Kerala to implement reservations for transgender persons in education and public employment. These writ petitions were submitted in accordance with the legal principles established in the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Others (2014). The petitioners, who were seeking public employment, noted that none of the public employment notifications included reservations for transgender individuals, prompting them to file the writ.

Kerela High Court’s Observation

The Court noted that while it typically refrains from interfering in the government's policy matters regarding fundamental rights, it has a crucial role in enforcing these rights. The government's ongoing inaction, despite clear legal and constitutional responsibilities, compels the Court to consider issuing appropriate directives to ensure adherence to constitutional and legal mandates. The Supreme Court's ruling is vital for ensuring that transgender individuals receive equal treatment alongside other gender groups. Following the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the Government of Kerala also established rules to achieve the objectives of these statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that education is a fundamental human right and that the Constitution guarantees equal rights as part of these fundamental rights. In granting relief to the petitioners, the Court ruled that the Government cannot postpone the implementation of reservations for transgender persons and must take action to provide these reservations within six months.

Who are Trans Gender Persons?

The transgender community encompasses a diverse array of individuals whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth. Gender identity is defined as a person's internal perception of their own gender, which can be male, female, a blend of both, or neither (non-binary). It is crucial to acknowledge that transgender individuals possess a wide range of experiences, identities, and backgrounds. They encounter distinct challenges related to societal stigma, discrimination, and access to healthcare, among other concerns.

2. Specific Relief Act | Relinquishment of Claims Under Section 12(3) for Part Performance Can Be Made At Any Stage of Litigation: Supreme Court

Case Title: Vijay Prabhu vs. S.T. Lajapathie& Ors.

Date of Judgment: 8th January, 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R Mahadevan

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ruled that the issue of relinquishing claims under Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, may be presented at any point during litigation. They stated, "The relinquishment of claims under Section 12(3) can occur at any stage of litigation, including during the appellate phase."

Facts of the Case

The petitioner in this case is the original plaintiff who initiated a suit for specific performance of a sales agreement and for the delivery of possession of the property in question. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought ₹60,00,000 with an interest rate of 12% per annum as damages from the date the suit was filed. The Trial Court denied the request for specific performance and ordered a refund of the earnest money amounting to ₹20,00,000, along with interest at 12%. The Trial Court also noted that the plaintiff was not prepared to fulfill his obligations under the contract. The case was subsequently brought before the High Court, which determined that the plaintiff could not invoke the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), as he had not relinquished all claims. As a result, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed. The current Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's judgment and order.

Supreme Court’s Observation-

The Court examined Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act (SRA), which is relevant to the current case. It determined that the phrase "unable to perform," as used in Section 12(3), applies only when a party cannot fulfill the entirety of their promise for any reason. This inability may stem from various causes, including statutory limitations. The inability to perform can arise from:

• Deficiency in the quantity of the subject matter,
• Variance in quality,
• Defect in title,
• Legal prohibitions, or
• Other reasons.

The authority to grant relief under Section 12(3) of the SRA is discretionary and can only be invoked when there is a clear distinction between the rights and interests of the parties involved in the property. The Court noted that relinquishing claims for further performance of the remaining contract and all rights to compensation can occur at any stage of litigation. Therefore, it concluded that the plaintiff-appellant's request for relief under Section 12(3) was not rightly dismissed by the High Court merely because it was raised for the first time during the appellate stage. The Court found no legal error in the High Court's decision and consequently dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Part Performance under SRA

Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act (SRA) outlines the law regarding part performance of contracts.

Section 12(1) states that, unless specified otherwise in this section, the court shall not order specific performance of a part of the contract.

Section 12(2) allows for part performance of a contract if certain conditions are met. If one party is unable to fully fulfill their obligations, the court can still enforce the part that can be completed, provided that the uncompleted portion is minor in relation to the entire agreement. The court may also award monetary compensation for the incomplete portion, ensuring fairness for both parties while addressing any deficiencies.

Section 12(3) stipulates that part performance may be permitted under specific conditions. If one party cannot fully perform their obligations, specific performance may not be granted if:

• The unperformed part is substantial, even if it could be compensated monetarily.
• The unperformed part cannot be compensated with money.
• In such instances, the court can require the defaulting party to complete the portion of the contract they can fulfill, provided the other party consents. The other party must either:
• Pay the agreed amount minus the value of the unperformed part (clause a), or
• Pay the full agreed amount without any deductions (clause b).

Additionally, the other party must waive any claims for performance of the remaining part of the contract and any compensation for non-performance.

Section 12(4) states that if a part of a contract can and should be specifically performed on its own and is distinct from another part that cannot or should not be specifically performed, the court may order specific performance of the former part.