Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an application filed by the respondent, a woman, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigad. She claimed to have married one Gangaram Nalavade in 1995, not knowing he was already married, and that a son was born from their relationship. After his death in 2007, his sons from his first marriage attempted to evict her from a house where she resided. She sought protection orders, alleging domestic violence. The petitioners, the sons of the deceased, contested her status, asserting she was not legally married to their father and no domestic relationship existed. The Magistrate, after examining documentary evidence including a marriage registration certificate, a joint bank account, family pension records, and a school certificate showing the child's name, held that the respondent was in a domestic relationship in the nature of marriage with the deceased. An injunction was issued restraining the petitioners from interfering with her possession of the house, and compensation was awarded. The petitioners appealed to the Sessions Court, which affirmed the Magistrate's order, noting the absence of positive evidence that the petitioners had ever resided in the house. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the concurrent findings. The core legal issue was whether the lower courts erred in determining that the respondent fell within the definition of 'aggrieved person' under the DV Act. The High Court found that the evidence, especially the family pension granted to the respondent as the deceased's wife, clearly indicated a relationship akin to marriage. The Court emphasized that under Section 2(f) of the Act, a complaint is maintainable from a person in a relationship in the nature of marriage. Since the findings were based on documentary evidence and not perverse, the High Court declined to interfere, dismissing the writ petition and upholding the injunction and compensation order.
Headnote
A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - 'Domestic Relationship' under Section 2(f) - Evidence of relationship in the nature of marriage - Marriage registration certificate, joint bank account, family pension, and school records of child held sufficient to establish a relationship in the nature of marriage. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the respondent was in a domestic relationship with the deceased, and thus an 'aggrieved person' entitled to protection. Held that no perversity in the orders warrants interference under writ jurisdiction. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the findings of the lower courts that the respondent was in a domestic relationship with the deceased, thereby entitling her to protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were perverse or without evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the existence of a domestic relationship were based on documentary evidence and not perverse; the injunction order and compensation were upheld.
Law Points
- Definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- nature of evidence to establish a relationship in the nature of marriage
- concurrent findings of fact by lower courts
- scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (09) 24
WRIT PETITION NO. 1192 OF 2017
Smt. Bharati H. Dangre, J.
Mr. P.D. Dalvi, Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar, Ms. S.D. Shinde
Nilesh Gangaram Nalavade & Anr
Dhanlaxmi Gangaram Nalavade and anr
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent findings of lower courts in a domestic violence matter.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order of the Sessions Judge and the Magistrate that had granted injunction and protection to the respondent under the DV Act.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the order that restrained them from interfering with the respondent's possession of the house and directed compensation of Rs.2,000 to the respondent.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigad, by order dated 24 July 2008 in Criminal Misc. Application No.115 of 2007, granted an injunction restraining interference with possession and awarded compensation. The Sessions Judge, Raigad, by order dated 9 January 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2008, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Magistrate's order.
Issues
Whether the respondent could be treated as being in a 'domestic relationship' with the deceased under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, and thus an 'aggrieved person' entitled to relief.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were perverse to warrant intervention under writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the respondent was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased and no domestic relationship existed; they challenged the evidentiary value of the documents produced.
Respondent argued that she was in a relationship in the nature of marriage with the deceased, evidenced by marriage registration, joint bank account, family pension, and child's school records; she sought protection under the DV Act as an aggrieved person.
Ratio Decidendi
In proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a relationship in the nature of marriage can be established through documentary evidence such as marriage registration, joint bank account, family pension, and school records of the child, even if the marriage is not legally valid due to a prior subsisting marriage. The High Court under writ jurisdiction will not disturb concurrent findings of fact based on such evidence unless perversity is shown.
Judgment Excerpts
The Court, therefore, concluded that the proceedings filed by the applicant under the Domestic Violence Act would fall within the purview of Section 2(f) and is therefore, liable to be entertained since the Act permitted the complaints to be entertained from an aggrieved person who is in the relationship of marriage or in the relationship like marriage.
On the basis of the said documents, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded that since the applicant was in receipt of pension on account of the demise of deceased Gangaram, in form of a family pension, it is clear that the relationship between the deceased Gangaram and the applicant was like that of a marriage.
Procedural History
The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigad (Criminal Misc. Application No.115 of 2007) seeking reliefs. By order dated 24 July 2008, the Magistrate granted an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with her possession of the house and directed payment of compensation of Rs.2,000. The petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2008 before the Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag. The Sessions Judge, by order dated 9 January 2017, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Magistrate's order. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 2(f), Section 12
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 145
