Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner Sheetal Chandrakant Kunjir filed a Writ Petition seeking relief under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA, 2005) claiming her relationship with Respondent No. 1 Chandrakant Tukaram Kunjir constituted a 'relationship in the nature of marriage'. The Petitioner alleged she married Respondent No. 1 on 18 June 2005 while he was still married to Respondent No. 2. She filed a Domestic Violence complaint before JMFC, Pune which granted her maintenance, compensation, and protection. The Sessions Court quashed this order in Appeals. The High Court examined whether such relationship during subsistence of a valid marriage qualifies as 'relationship in nature of marriage' under PWDVA, 2005. The Court held it does not, as the Act does not recognize relationships that undermine existing marriages. The Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding the Sessions Court order.
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(PWDVA,2005)-- Sections 2(f) and 29-- Question as to whether the petitioner married with the respondent no.1 during the subsistence of his marriage with respondent no.2 is entitled to relief under DV Act, 2005?-- Petitioner filed a complaint before JMFC court for certain reliefs-- Complaint was allowed by Ld. Magistrate and relief granted to the petitioner-- Aggrieved-- Challenged by both sides in an appeal before session court-- Ld. Session court allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 and order of granting relief was set aside-- Aggrieved-- Challenged by the petitioner in high court-- Respondent no.1 got secretly married with the petitioner-- Relationship-- Legality-- "Relationship in the nature of marriage"-- Case of Indra Sarma (Supra) referred-- Question as to whether the relationship between the petitioner and respondent no.1 is a 'relationship in the nature of marriage?- Purview of Section 2(f) of DV Act-- Case of D. Velasamy (Supra) referred-- Requirement of fulfillment of four criterias-- 'Live in relationship between unmarried woman and married man is not a 'relationship in the nature of marriage'-- Petitioner was knowing that respondent no.1 was married despite that petitioner entered into relationship, which has no legal sanctity-- Respondent no.1 was already married man, does not qualify condition (c) as per judgment of D. Velusamy (Supra) which requires that the parties must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried-- No interference-- Petition dismissed Para-- 19, 22, 24, 25, 27
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Petitioner who married Respondent No. 1 during the subsistence of his marriage with Respondent No. 2 is entitled for reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by treating her relationship with Respondent No. 1 as a 'relationship in the nature of marriage'
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed -- Sessions Court order upheld -- Petitioner not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
