The High Court dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition filed by four petitioners seeking to quash proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 initiated by respondents -- Petitioners argued no domestic relationship existed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 as they never lived in shared household -- Respondents contended relationship in nature of marriage existed, resulting in pregnancy and birth of child -- Court examined Supreme Court guidelines for establishing 'relationship in nature of marriage' and found prima facie evidence supporting respondents' claims -- Court held proceedings should continue for proper evidence examination and dismissed petition as premature -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 interpreted liberally to include various relationships
The High Court dismissed Criminal Writ Petition challenging proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Petitioners sought quashing of orders dated 08.09.2022 and 19.10.2023 in PWDVA No. 20/2022 -- Court examined whether relationship between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 constituted 'relationship in nature of marriage' under Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Applied guidelines from D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal and Indra Sarma Vs. V.K. Sarma -- Found prima facie evidence of domestic relationship based on prolonged sexual relationship, conception of children, and acknowledgment as husband-wife -- Held proceedings should continue for evidence examination -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V Act) interpreted liberally to protect women's rights
High Court dismissed Criminal Writ Petition No. 209/2024, allowing proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to continue for proper evidence examination
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 90
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 209/2024
Date of Decision: 2026-01-20
Case Title: Whether the proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be quashed on grounds of absence of domestic relationship between parties
Before Judge: M. M. Nerlikar J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-NAG:1174
Advocate(s): Mr. A.R. Fule, Mr. J.A. Anthony
Appellant: Pravin Satyanarayan Battulwar, Satyanarayan Mallya Battulwar, Laxmibai Satyanarayan Batulwar, Chayarani Pravin Battulwar
Respondent: Meena Pravin Battulwar, Shrinidhi d/o. Pravin Battulwar
Nature of Litigation: Criminal Writ Petition challenging domestic violence proceedings
Remedy Sought: Petitioners sought quashing of entire proceedings including orders dated 08.09.2022 and 19.10.2023 in PWDVA No. 20/2022
Filing Reason: Petitioners claimed no domestic relationship existed between parties, making proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 invalid
Previous Decisions: Judicial Magistrate First Class granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2000 to respondent No. 2 in PWDVA No. 20/2022
Issues: Whether relationship between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 constituted 'relationship in nature of marriage' under Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Whether proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be quashed at preliminary stage
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioners argued no relationship in nature of marriage existed as parties never lived in shared household and did not portray themselves as spouses to society Respondents argued relationship in nature of marriage existed based on prolonged sexual relationship, conception of children, and acknowledgment as husband-wife, requiring liberal interpretation of domestic relationship definition
Ratio Decidendi: Relationship in nature of marriage under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be interpreted liberally to protect women's rights -- Prima facie evidence of prolonged sexual relationship, conception of children, and acknowledgment as husband-wife establishes domestic relationship -- Proceedings should not be quashed at preliminary stage when prima facie case exists
Judgment Excerpts: 'The couple must hold themselves out to the society as being akin to spouses' -- Guidelines from D. Velusamy case 'Duration of period of relationship' -- Relevant condition from Indra Sarma case 'Prima facie it appears that there was a relationship between the couple' -- Court's observation on evidence
Procedural History: FIR lodged by respondent No. 1 on 07.05.2022 alleging sexual abuse -- Charge sheet filed on 26.06.2022 -- Petitioner No. 1 married petitioner No. 4 on 06.07.2022 -- Respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Judicial Magistrate granted interim maintenance -- Petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition challenging proceedings -- High Court heard arguments and dismissed petition
