Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dhanraj Shirsat, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the orders of the trial court and appellate court that rejected his application to dismiss domestic violence proceedings initiated by his wife, Shalini Wankhade. The parties were married, but the marriage was declared null and void by the Family Court, Akola, on 30 May 2015. Thereafter, the wife filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that after the declaration of nullity, no domestic relationship existed. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the DV Act does not require a valid marriage. The appellate court upheld this view, stating that the existence of a relationship in the nature of marriage is a factual issue requiring evidence. The High Court examined the provisions of the DV Act, particularly the definitions of 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household'. It noted that a domestic relationship arises from a relationship in the nature of marriage, which presupposes a valid marriage. Since the Family Court had declared the marriage null and void, there was no legal basis for any relationship in the nature of marriage. The court held that the DV Act proceedings cannot be maintained once the marriage is annulled, as the foundational relationship ceases to exist. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and dismissed the complaint filed by the wife.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Domestic Violence - Null and Void Marriage - Section 2(f), Section 2(q), Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The issue was whether a declaration of marriage as null and void by a Family Court terminates the domestic relationship for the purposes of the DV Act. The High Court held that once the marriage is declared null and void, there is no relationship in the nature of marriage and no shared household, and thus the complaint under the DV Act is not maintainable. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings. (Paras 2-6) B) Family Law - Domestic Violence - Relationship in the Nature of Marriage - Section 2(f) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The appellate court had held that a valid marriage is not a condition precedent for DV Act proceedings and that the existence of a relationship in the nature of marriage is a factual issue. The High Court disagreed, noting that the Family Court's decree of nullity conclusively establishes that no such relationship ever existed, and therefore the DV Act proceedings cannot continue. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can continue after the marriage between the parties has been declared null and void by a competent court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 5/5/2017 and order dated 19/12/2016, and dismissed the complaint filed by respondent no.1 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Law Points
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 2(f)
- Section 2(q)
- Section 12
- null and void marriage
- relationship in the nature of marriage
- domestic relationship
- shared household
