Chhattisgarh High Court: In a revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) against the judgment dated 02-08-2024, whereby the criminal appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed, Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., stated that in the present case, the woman had clearly stated that she was not aware of her partner’s family and her partner had also not placed any evidence on record to suggest that the woman was aware about the marriage and children. Therefore, the relationship between the parties was in nature of marriage.
Further, regarding maintenance, the Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, that the woman and the child was entitled to receive maintenance of Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 2,000 per month, respectively. The said amount could not be said to be a bonanza or on a higher pedestal, looking to the earning of the man who worked as forest guard and getting good amount of salary from the State Government.
Background
In the present case, the marriage between Respondent 1 (‘woman’) and her partner, i.e. the applicant (‘man’) was solemnized in 2016 and from this wedlock, Respondent 2 (‘child’) was born. The woman filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Janakpur (‘the Trial Court’) for grant of maintenance contending that the man had tortured her by consuming liquor and used filthy language. The woman stated that this compelled her to file a complaint under Section 12 of DV Act, claiming relief for maintenance.
The man filed a reply to the application mainly contending that he was already married, and he had three children. The man also contended that no marriage between them was solemnized, as such there was no question of birth of the child from their wedlock. The documents submitted by woman were forged and fabricated. Further, the man contended that she was working as Anganwadi worker therefore, she had prepared forged and fabricated record and the complaint under Section 12 of the Act was not maintainable.
The Trial Court stated that the act committed by the man fell within the ambit of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act and accordingly allowed the application. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Trial Court, the man filed an appeal under DV Act, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 02-08-2024. Thus, the present revision was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the point to be determined was whether woman in a live-in relationship was entitled to get maintenance under DV Act. The Court stated that the DV Act had been enacted with an object of ensuring woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home. The DV Act had special feature with special provisions under law which provided protection to a woman, to live in a violence free home.
The Court noted that it was contended that the man was already a married person, therefore, the woman could not grant the benefit of DV Act, as she could not fall within ambit of live-in relationship also. The Court stated that this submission deserved to be rejected as the man had not produced any evidence on record to establish that his marriage and his children were known to the woman, and despite knowing everything she was in relationship with him.
The Court stated that the woman had clearly stated that she was not aware about her partner’s marriage and his children. Further, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had stated that the relationship between them, fell under the category of domestic relationship. Thus, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court could not be said that it suffered from perversity or illegality which warranted interference by this Court.
The Court stated that in the present case, the woman had clearly stated that she was not aware of the man’s family and the man had also not placed any evidence on record to suggest that the woman was aware about the marriage and children. Therefore, the relationship between the parties was in nature of marriage. Further, regarding maintenance, the Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, that the woman and the child was entitled to receive maintenance of Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 2,000 per month, respectively. The said amount could not be said to be a bonanza or on a higher pedestal, considering the earning of the man who worked as forest guard and was getting good amount of salary from the State Government.
[X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 9711, decided on 07-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Ramsevak Soni, Advocate
