Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Deepak @ Gajanan Ramrao Kanegaonkar (the applicant) challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, which dismissed his appeal against the maintenance order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane. The respondent no. 2, Soniya Depak @ Gajanan Kanegaonkar, had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance for herself and her two daughters, Tania and Antra. The Magistrate partly allowed the application, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000 per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 6,500 per month each for the two daughters. The applicant appealed, but the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal. The core issue before both courts was whether the applicant and respondent no. 2 had lived together for a reasonably long period in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage. The Magistrate framed two issues: (1) whether the parties had lived together for a reasonably long period in a relationship in the nature of marriage, and (2) whether the daughters were begotten from the applicant. The High Court, in this revision, examined the evidence and found that the parties had indeed lived together and had two daughters, whom the applicant acknowledged. The court upheld the maintenance order, holding that the relationship was in the nature of marriage and thus covered under the Domestic Violence Act. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence Act - Domestic Relationship - Relationship in Nature of Marriage - Section 2(f), Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The core issue was whether the parties had lived together for a reasonably long period in a relationship akin to marriage. The court held that the evidence on record, including the birth of two daughters and the fact that the applicant had acknowledged them, established that the parties had lived together in a relationship in the nature of marriage. The maintenance awarded by the Magistrate was upheld. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant and respondent no. 2 had lived together for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage, thereby entitling respondent no. 2 to maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Appeal No. 150/2013 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Domestic relationship
- relationship in the nature of marriage
- living together for reasonably long period
- maintenance under Domestic Violence Act
- Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 129
Criminal Revision Application No. 341 of 2014
Ms. Swapna Kode i/by Hrishikesh Mundergi for the applicant, Mr. Omkar Warange i/by Ameya Tamhane for respondent no. 1, Smt. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the State
Deepak @ Gajanan Ramrao Kanegaonkar
The State of Maharashtra, Soniya Depak @ Gajanan Kanegaonkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal against the maintenance order passed by the Judicial Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the maintenance order passed by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court.
Filing Reason
The applicant was aggrieved by the order directing him to pay maintenance to respondent no. 2 and her two daughters.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane in O.M.A. No. 662 of 2009 partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000 per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 6,500 per month each for the two daughters. The Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Appeal No. 150/2013 dismissed the appeal.
Issues
Whether the applicant and respondent no. 2 had lived together for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the relationship was not in the nature of marriage and thus the Domestic Violence Act did not apply.
Respondent no. 2 contended that the parties lived together and had two daughters, establishing a domestic relationship.
Ratio Decidendi
A man and woman living together for a reasonably long period in a relationship akin to marriage constitutes a 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, entitling the woman to maintenance under Section 12.
Judgment Excerpts
The core issue before both the courts below was as to whether the applicant and respondent no. 2 had lived together for reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage.
Procedural History
Respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane (O.M.A. No. 662 of 2009). The Magistrate partly allowed the application on an unspecified date. The applicant appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane (Criminal Appeal No. 150/2013), which was dismissed. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 12, Section 2(f)
