Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Kahiram Mapari, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Washim, in PWDV No.16/2023. The Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's Exhibit 10, which raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the respondent's application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner also sought quashing of the entire proceedings under the Act. The respondent, Ranjana Ashok Polkar (styled as Ranjana Suresh Mapari in the complaint), had filed the application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner argued that the parties were neither married nor had a relationship in the nature of marriage, and therefore there was no domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. The petitioner pointed to various documents, including an FIR, charge-sheet, and other legal proceedings, where the respondent's name appeared as 'Ranjana Polkar' or 'Ranjana Ashok Polkar', indicating she was not married to the petitioner. The respondent, however, claimed a love affair and cohabitation, which she argued constituted a relationship in the nature of marriage. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the issue of whether a relationship in the nature of marriage existed is a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be decided at the preliminary stage without evidence. The court found no error in the Magistrate's order rejecting the preliminary objection and dismissed the petition, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial and decide the matter on merits after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The court also made the rule absolute in terms of the dismissal.
Headnote
A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Domestic Relationship - Relationship in Nature of Marriage - Section 2(f) - The court considered whether a relationship based on love affair and cohabitation amounts to a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the Act. The court held that the issue requires evidence and cannot be decided at the preliminary stage. The Magistrate's order rejecting the preliminary objection was upheld. (Paras 2-4) B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Maintainability - Preliminary Objection - The court held that the question of maintainability based on absence of marriage is a mixed question of law and fact, which should be decided after trial. The petition challenging the rejection of such preliminary objection was dismissed. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent is an 'aggrieved person' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether the application under the Act is maintainable when the parties are not legally married but claim a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate's order rejecting the preliminary objection. The court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial and decide the matter on merits after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 includes relationship in nature of marriage
- Cohabitation and shared household are key factors to determine relationship in nature of marriage
- Preliminary objection as to maintainability can be decided at final stage after evidence
