Case Note & Summary
The applicant, a doctor, filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court challenging a conditional order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belapur in PWDVA Appeal No. 15 of 2024. The dispute arose from matrimonial proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 initiated by respondent No. 2, the applicant's wife, who alleged domestic violence and sought maintenance. The Magistrate had directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance and rent. When respondent No. 2 obtained a distress warrant for recovery of arrears, the applicant sought stay in his pending appeal. The Sessions Judge granted stay subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000. The applicant challenged this precondition, asserting that the complaint itself was not maintainable because there was no valid domestic relationship, as respondent No.2 had a subsisting marriage at the time of their wedding. The applicant and respondent No.2 married on 30 September 2017 at Trambakeshwar, Nashik. Later, on 25 July 2018, the marriage was registered, but the certificate recorded the marriage date as 25 July 2018 instead of the original date. Respondent No.2 allegedly had a pre-existing marriage with one Kandarp Bhuva; divorce proceedings were filed on 10 October 2017 and a divorce decree was passed on 16 April 2018 in H.M.P. No. 702 of 2017. The applicant contended that at the time of marriage, respondent No.2 was not legally eligible to marry because her first marriage was subsisting, making the marriage void. Respondent No.2 countered that the applicant was aware of the first marriage and had persuaded her to marry; after obtaining the divorce decree, they performed a second marriage ceremony on 25 July 2018, thereby legalising the union. She also pointed out that the applicant used the marriage certificate for a housing loan and continued cohabitation until 1 August 2019. The core issues were whether the relationship between the parties was a 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, 2005 and whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in imposing a deposit of Rs.5,00,000 as a precondition for staying the distress warrant when the appeal challenged the very maintainability of the complaint. The applicant relied on D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469, arguing that a relationship in the nature of marriage requires both parties to be unmarried; since respondent No.2 was married at the time of their marriage, the relationship could not qualify. He also argued that the Sessions Judge should not have ordered deposit of arrears when the underlying order was under challenge. Respondent No.2 argued that the marriage was valid after 25 July 2018, that the applicant had accepted the certificate and cohabited, and that his allegations were false to avoid maintenance. The judgment excerpt provided sets out the rival submissions but does not contain the court's analysis or final holding. The matter was reserved on 4 July 2025 and pronounced on 17 July 2025, but the supplied text ends at paragraph 13, before the court's reasoning and decision. Therefore, the final operative decision is not available in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Domestic Relationship - Section 2(s) and Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The applicant contended that respondent No.2 had a subsisting valid marriage at the time of their marriage, rendering the marriage void and excluding any domestic relationship; the Court was required to consider the four criteria laid down in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, including the requirement that parties be unmarried; the applicant argued that the JMFC order granting interim maintenance was passed without recording a finding on existence of domestic relationship (Paras 6-8). B) Interim Relief - Stay of Distress Warrant - Conditional Deposit of Arrears - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The Additional Sessions Judge granted stay of distress warrant subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000 as precondition; applicant challenged this conditional order arguing that when the underlying complaint itself was not maintainable, such precondition was unjustified; the Court considered whether the Sessions Judge should have examined merits before imposing deposit (Paras 5,7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.2 was void due to respondent No.2's pre-existing marriage, thereby excluding domestic relationship under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in imposing a precondition of depositing Rs.5,00,000 for stay of distress warrant when the substantive appeal challenging the maintenance order was pending.
Final Decision
The provided judgment excerpt does not contain the final operative decision.
Law Points
- domestic relationship
- relationship in the nature of marriage
- four criteria from D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal
- void marriage under Hindu Marriage Act
- maintenance under PWDVA
- stay of distress warrant
- conditional deposit of arrears
- bonafides
