Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Narayan Jangluji Thool, his son Pritam, and daughter Sonali, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur seeking quashing of a complaint filed by the respondent, Mala Wani, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, along with an interim maintenance order dated 24 July 2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal. The respondent alleged domestic violence and sought relief against the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the respondent, a married woman with a subsisting marriage, could not claim a 'domestic relationship' with petitioner No.1 under Section 2(f) of the Act, as such a relationship would be adulterous and not in the nature of marriage. The respondent argued that the issue of domestic relationship was a factual matter requiring trial. The court, relying on precedents including D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (AIR 2011 SC 479) and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2014 (1) ABR 615), held that a relationship in the nature of marriage under the Act must be akin to a marriage, which is not possible when one party is already married. Since the respondent admitted her marriage subsisted, she could not maintain a complaint under the DV Act against petitioner No.1. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint and the interim maintenance order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence Act - Domestic Relationship - Relationship in the nature of marriage - Section 2(f) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - A married woman whose marriage is subsisting cannot be said to be in a 'domestic relationship' with another man, as such a relationship would be adulterous and not in the nature of marriage - The court quashed the complaint and interim maintenance order against the male petitioner, holding that the respondent-wife, being a married woman, could not have entered into a domestic relationship with petitioner No.1 (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a married woman whose marriage subsists can claim to be in a 'domestic relationship' with another man under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, so as to maintain a complaint under the Act
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The complaint filed by the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the order dated 24/7/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal granting interim maintenance to the respondent are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 requires a relationship in the nature of marriage
- which cannot exist when the woman is already married and her marriage subsists
- as such a relationship would be adulterous and not akin to marriage
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 108
Criminal Writ Petition No. 773 of 2014
Shri H. S. Chitaley for petitioners, Shri D. P. Chambhare for respondent
Narayan Jangluji Thool, Pritam Narayan Thool, Sonali @ Priyanka Narayan Thool
Sou. Mala w/o Chandan Wani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and an interim maintenance order
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the complaint filed by the respondent under the DV Act and the order dated 24/7/2014 granting interim maintenance to the respondent
Filing Reason
The respondent filed a complaint under the DV Act alleging domestic violence against the petitioners, and the magistrate granted interim maintenance
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal passed an order dated 24/7/2014 granting interim maintenance to the respondent
Issues
Whether a married woman with a subsisting marriage can be said to be in a 'domestic relationship' with another man under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent, being a married woman with a subsisting marriage, could not have a domestic relationship with petitioner No.1 as it would be adulterous and not in the nature of marriage
Respondent argued that the issue of domestic relationship is a factual matter requiring trial and should not be decided at the threshold
Ratio Decidendi
A 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includes a relationship in the nature of marriage, which must be akin to a marriage. A married woman whose marriage is subsisting cannot enter into such a relationship with another man, as it would be adulterous and not in the nature of marriage. Therefore, a complaint under the DV Act by such a woman against the other man is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the respondent has nowhere averred in the petition that she has been living or at any point of time before filing of the application under the Act, 2005 was living with petitioner No.1 in a relationship arising from marriage or that was similar to a marriage.
In the case of Durgesh Yuvraj Rahangdale (supra), Division Bench of this Court, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal – AIR 2011 SC 479, has held that a relationship in the nature of marriage must be one which is akin to a marriage and it cannot be a relationship which is adulterous in nature.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent is a married woman and her marriage still subsists. Therefore, she could not have entered into a domestic relationship with petitioner No.1.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal, who passed an order dated 24/7/2014 granting interim maintenance to the respondent. The petitioners then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 773 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur seeking quashing of the complaint and the interim maintenance order. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 27 January 2015.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 2(f)
