Court Upholds Legal Requirements for Valid Marriages, Rejects Plaintiff's Claim Due to Existing Spousal Relationship
In a significant judgment delivered on April 1, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal by Anita Advani, who sought a declaration that her live-in relationship with the deceased actor Jatin Khanna was akin to marriage and that she should be recognized as his widow. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh presided over the case and upheld the City Civil Court's previous decision to dismiss the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Anita Advani filed the suit against Dimple Jatin Khanna and others, seeking a declaration of her relationship in the nature of marriage. The City Civil Court had dismissed the suit on July 15, 2017, on the grounds that it was barred by law. The core of the dispute lay in the fact that Jatin Khanna's marriage with Dimple Khanna was still legally valid at the time of his relationship with Advani.
Advani's counsel, Ms. Preeti Singh, argued that the suit's dismissal was unwarranted and that the relationship between Advani and the deceased had the characteristics of marriage, as they lived together and publicly projected their relationship as such. However, the High Court reaffirmed that the essential requirements of a valid marriage under Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act were not met, as a subsisting marriage existed.
The Court emphasized the necessity of fulfilling the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, which requires that both parties must be legally eligible to marry, among other tests, for a live-in relationship to be recognized as akin to marriage. In this case, the existing marriage of Jatin Khanna was a critical barrier.
The High Court also considered precedents set by the Supreme Court, which clarified that a relationship in the nature of marriage must meet the cumulative tests of legal eligibility to marry, holding oneself out to society as a spouse, and sharing a household for a significant period. Given that the deceased's prior marriage was undissolved, these criteria were not satisfied in Advani's case.
This judgment reinforces the legal boundaries within which relationships in the nature of marriage are recognized under Indian law, highlighting the importance of legal marital status and the implications of existing marital ties. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the sanctity of legal marriage and its statutory requirements, thereby dismissing claims that contradict established legal principles.
Bottom Line:
A relationship in the nature of marriage must meet specific tests to qualify as such under the law, including the requirement that both parties must be legally qualified to enter into a valid marriage.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VII Rule 11; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sections 5, 7; Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 2(f).
Anita Advani v. Dimple Jatin Khanna, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2876023
