Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by the applicant wife, Jayashri Samshuddin Talapdar, aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court at Solapur which reversed the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Solapur. The JMFC had directed the respondent husband to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000 per month and rent to the applicant. The applicant's case was that she was married to one Parmeshwar Melage 20 years ago, but her husband absconded in 1994. She then came in contact with the respondent, a Muslim vegetable trader, and from 1998, she resided with him in a joint household. She claimed that the relationship was akin to marriage and she was introduced as his wife. She filed an application under Sections 2, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The JMFC allowed her application, but the Sessions Court reversed it, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma. The applicant argued that the Sessions Court misinterpreted the term 'domestic relationship' and failed to apply the principles from D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal. The High Court analyzed the facts and held that the relationship was long-term (15 years), the parties lived together in a shared household, and the woman was presented as the respondent's wife. The court distinguished Indra Sarma, noting that in that case the woman knew the man was married, whereas here the applicant's husband had absconded. The court concluded that the relationship was in the nature of marriage and allowed the revision, restoring the JMFC's order.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence Act - Domestic Relationship - Relationship in the Nature of Marriage - Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The court considered whether a woman who was already married but living with another man for 15 years in a relationship akin to marriage can claim maintenance - Held that the relationship qualifies as a 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) as it is in the nature of marriage, and the woman is entitled to maintenance (Paras 1-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a woman who is already married but living in a long-term relationship with another man can claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether the relationship qualifies as a 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Sessions Court, and restored the order of the JMFC granting maintenance of Rs.1,000 per month and rent to the applicant.
Law Points
- Domestic relationship
- relationship in the nature of marriage
- maintenance under DV Act
- live-in relationship
- Section 2(f) of DV Act
- Section 12 of DV Act
- Section 125 CrPC
