By Advocate Karan Dua | Vintage Litigation, New Delhi | Published: July 2026

A question I get almost every month, from both sides of the same problem: “We’re not married — can I still file a domestic violence case against my partner?” And, just as often, from the other side: “We were never married. Can she really drag me into a DV case as if we were husband and wife?”

The short answer to both is yes, sometimes — and the word “sometimes” is where almost every real dispute actually gets fought. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the “DV Act”) does not require a marriage certificate. It was written, deliberately, to reach relationships that look and function like a marriage even without one. But it doesn’t cover every live-in arrangement either, and the gap between “covered” and “not covered” has produced some of the most closely watched family law rulings of the last two years — including a Bombay High Court judgment as recently as January 2026 that denied protection to a woman precisely because her partner was still legally married to someone else throughout their relationship.

If you’re in a live-in relationship in Delhi — whether you’re worried about your own safety, or worried about being on the receiving end of a complaint — this is what the law actually says, what it doesn’t, and what tends to decide these cases in practice.

Does the DV Act apply to live-in relationships at all?

Yes. Section 2(f) of the Act defines a “domestic relationship” broadly enough to include people who live together “through a relationship in the nature of marriage” — not just married couples. This isn’t a loophole or a judicial stretch; it’s how the Act was drafted from the start, specifically to close the gap left by criminal law (like Section 498A, which only applies to married women) for women who share a household with a partner without a formal marriage.

That said, “in the nature of marriage” is doing a lot of legal work in that sentence, and it’s the single most litigated phrase in this entire area of law.

The legal test: what makes a live-in relationship “in the nature of marriage”

The Supreme Court’s leading judgment on this — and one every Delhi family court still applies today — is D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010). The Court laid down four conditions that must generally be met for a live-in relationship to qualify for DV Act protection:

1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses — meaning it’s a known, acknowledged relationship, not a secret arrangement.
2. Both partners must be of legal age to marry.
3. Both partners must otherwise be legally qualified to marry — critically, this means neither partner can already be validly married to someone else.
4. The couple must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time, presenting themselves to the world as being like husband and wife.

The Court was equally clear about what does not qualify. A relationship built around one partner financially maintaining the other primarily for domestic or sexual convenience — what the judgment bluntly called a “keep” arrangement — does not meet the standard, regardless of how long it lasted. Nor does a casual arrangement, an occasional stay-over, or what the Delhi High Court in an earlier case described as a “walk-in, walk-out” relationship with no real mutual commitment.

The Supreme Court refined this further in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), confirming that duration and the “husband-and-wife” character of the cohabitation both matter — a live-in relationship has to look like a marriage in substance, even without the paperwork, before the Act treats it like one.

The condition that trips people up most: both partners must be free to marry

This is where a large number of live-in DV Act claims actually fail — not on whether the couple lived together, or for how long, but on whether either partner was already married to someone else during the relationship.

A Bombay High Court ruling in January 2026 is the clearest recent illustration. A woman sought DV Act protection after cohabiting with a man for years, including undergoing fertility treatment and having a child together — she said he had misrepresented his marital status and claimed his first marriage was ending. The Court held that because he remained legally married to his first wife throughout the relationship, it could not be a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f), regardless of how genuine or long-standing the cohabitation was, and regardless of any misrepresentation about his marital status.

This matters enormously in practice, because it means the DV Act’s protection is not simply about proving you lived together and were treated as a couple — it also requires that the relationship could, in principle, have culminated in a valid marriage. If one partner was never actually free to marry, the DV Act route closes, even where real harm occurred. (In situations like this, other legal remedies — such as civil claims for breach of promise, or in some cases criminal complaints for cheating — may still be worth exploring; this is exactly the kind of fact pattern that needs a specific consultation rather than a general answer.)

What counts as “domestic violence” once the relationship qualifies

Once a live-in relationship meets the Velusamy/Indra Sarma test, the protections available are the same as those available to a married woman under the Act. Section 3 defines domestic violence across four categories, and all four apply equally to a qualifying live-in relationship:

• Physical abuse — any act causing bodily pain, harm, or danger to life or health, including assault and criminal force.
• Sexual abuse — any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, or violates dignity.
• Verbal and emotional abuse — this is broader than many people expect. It includes insults, humiliation, and threats — including humiliation over not having a child, a point the Act specifically calls out.
• Economic abuse — deprivation of financial resources the person is entitled to, disposal of household assets, or restricting access to shared resources.

What relief can a live-in partner actually get

This is usually the more practical question, and it’s where the DV Act is genuinely useful even in an emergency:

• Protection orders — restraining the abusive partner from committing further acts of violence, contacting the aggrieved person, or entering their workplace.
• Residence orders — critically, this can include the right to continue living in the shared household, or an order restraining the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved person from it, even though the property may not be in her name. This is often the single most urgent relief sought, because losing housing immediately after a relationship ends is one of the most common practical crises we see.
• Monetary relief — compensation for loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss of property, and maintenance for the aggrieved person (and any children).
• Compensation orders — for the mental torture and emotional distress caused.
• Custody orders — the Magistrate can grant temporary custody of children to the aggrieved person during proceedings.

Importantly, DV Act relief under Sections 18–22 is available through a relatively fast, Magistrate-level process — it does not require the aggrieved person to first file for, or succeed in, a separate maintenance or civil suit. This is by design: the Act is meant to provide urgent, practical protection while the underlying relationship dispute (if any) is sorted out elsewhere.

What this means if you’re the one being accused

The other side of this conversation matters just as much, and it’s one we handle frequently. A DV Act complaint from a live-in partner is a civil remedy (not a criminal FIR in the way 498A is), but it can still result in binding orders — including orders affecting where you can live and your financial obligations — often on an interim, ex-parte basis before you’ve even had a full chance to respond.

If you’re facing a complaint like this, the questions worth asking immediately are:

• Did the relationship actually meet the Velusamy conditions — was it genuinely long-term, acknowledged, and “marriage-like,” or was it a shorter or more casual arrangement that may not qualify at all?
• Was either partner already married to someone else during the relationship? As the Bombay HC ruling above shows, this can be determinative.
• What documentary and witness evidence exists of how the relationship was actually held out to others — this cuts both ways, and vague, undocumented claims are far easier to contest than claims backed by shared leases, joint accounts, or a written cohabitation agreement.

None of this is a reason to assume a complaint is baseless — many are entirely genuine — but it is a reason to get the specific facts of the relationship reviewed by a lawyer before responding, rather than assuming either that the DV Act automatically applies or automatically doesn’t.

How this connects to the UCC and written agreements

If you’ve read our recent guide on the Uniform Civil Code and live-in relationships, you’ll know that Uttarakhand and Gujarat now require formal registration of live-in relationships within their borders. Delhi has no such requirement — but the underlying evidentiary problem the UCC registration is trying to solve (proving when a relationship began, and what both partners understood it to be) is exactly the same problem that decides most DV Act cases in Delhi courts too.

A well-drafted, signed live-in agreement — even though it has no formal registration requirement here — can materially help establish the “held out to society,” duration, and marital-status elements of the Velusamy test if a DV Act claim, a maintenance claim, or a dispute over the relationship’s nature ever arises. We’ve covered what such an agreement should include in our live-in relationship maintenance guide as well.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can an unmarried live-in partner file a domestic violence case in Delhi?

A: Yes, if the relationship qualifies as being “in the nature of marriage” under the Supreme Court’s Velusamy test — meaning it was long-term, acknowledged publicly, and both partners were legally free to marry each other. Short-term, casual, or secret arrangements typically do not qualify.

Q: What if my live-in partner was already married to someone else?

A: This is a significant obstacle. Courts, including a January 2026 Bombay High Court ruling, have held that a relationship cannot be “in the nature of marriage” under the DV Act if one partner remained legally married to someone else throughout the cohabitation — even where the relationship was genuine and long-standing.

Q: Can a man file a DV Act complaint against a live-in female partner?

A: No. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is specifically designed to protect women. A man facing abuse or harassment in a live-in relationship would need to pursue other legal remedies, such as general criminal law provisions or civil claims, rather than the DV Act itself.

Q: Can I get a residence order even if the house isn’t in my name?

A: Potentially, yes. If the relationship qualifies as domestic under the Act, a Magistrate can pass a residence order protecting your right to stay in the shared household, or restraining your partner from dispossessing you, regardless of whose name the property is registered in.

Q: Does living together for a short time count as a “domestic relationship”?

A: Generally, no. Courts have consistently held that a brief stay, an occasional visit, or a casual arrangement doesn’t meet the “significant period of time” and “husband-and-wife” character required by the Velusamy test — though there’s no fixed minimum duration set by statute, and each case turns on its specific facts.

Q: Does a written live-in agreement help in a DV Act case?

A: It can. While not legally required in Delhi, a signed agreement recording when the relationship began, both partners’ marital status, and how the relationship was understood can be valuable evidence in establishing (or, if you’re contesting a claim, testing) whether the relationship meets the legal definition of “domestic.”

Conclusion

The Domestic Violence Act extends real, practical protection to live-in partners in Delhi — but only where the relationship genuinely functions like a marriage in the eyes of the law: acknowledged, sustained, and between two people who were legally free to marry each other. That last condition, in particular, has become the deciding factor in a growing number of recent cases. Whether you’re seeking protection or responding to a claim, the outcome almost always comes down to the specific facts of the relationship — not general assumptions about what live-in couples are or aren’t entitled to.

Facing a domestic violence matter involving a live-in relationship, or need to understand where you stand? Speak to a family law advocate about your specific situation.

📞 Call: +91-9999483959 | 💬 WhatsApp Us

Written by Adv. Karan Dua, practising in Delhi, focuses on matrimonial and family law matters, including domestic violence and maintenance law matters involving live-in partners.