Delhi High Court: In a petition challenging the judgment dated 19-07-2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., stated that even though the man had relied upon certain agreement to show that the parties had entered into an alleged friendship agreement and had disputed the marriage, however, the same could not be accepted as a gospel truth at the initial stages. The Court stated that even otherwise, as per Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), the relationship of parties living together through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also fall within the definition of domestic relationship. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the complaint filed by the woman.
Background
In the present case, a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act was field by the woman alleging that the marriage between her and the man was solemnised on 22-04-2006. The woman alleged that thereafter, she resided with the man at her matrimonial home for almost seven years, where she was subjected to cruelty by the man and his family members on the pretext of dowry. Thus, after that the parties started residing separately.
The man filed an application and disputed the marriage after bringing on record a Friendship Agreement executed between himself and the woman, marriage certificate dated 03-04-2006, the divorce decree dated 01-02-2008 as well as the letter dated 03-04-2006 written by the woman to the police, wherein it was mentioned that the woman was first married to the man’s brother on 28-03-2006, and after the execution of the Friendship Agreement, the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 22-04-2006.
The Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) by order dated 20-06-2015, dismissed the application filed by the man questioning the maintainability of the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the man filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, whereby the order passed by the MM was dismissed and the complaint filed by the woman under Section 12 of the DV Act was dismissed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that in terms of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, domestic relationship not only meant a relationship between two persons who live together in a shared household by virtue of marriage. Two persons who lived together in a shared household through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also be called to be in a domestic relationship.
The Court observed that the woman, in the complaint had categorically stated that the marriage between her and the man was solemnised on 22-04-2006, where after she resided in the shared household for almost seven years and was subjected to cruelty. The Court stated that it was settled law that at the initial stage when the issue of maintainability was raised, the Judge concerned had to take the allegations and the factual content on a demurrer. Even though man had relied upon certain agreement to show that the parties had entered into an alleged friendship agreement and had disputed the marriage, however, the same could not be accepted as a gospel truth at the initial stages.
The Court stated that even otherwise, as per Section 2(f) of the DV Act, the relationship of parties living together through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also fall within the definition of domestic relationship. The allegation in the present case clearly pointed towards the allegation of domestic violence while the woman lived in a shared household for almost seven years in a domestic relationship if not as a married couple but at least as a couple in the nature of marriage. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the complaint case filed by the woman.
[X v. Y, Crl. Rev. P 203 of 2017, decided on 07-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dinesh Garg, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Baldev Singh, Divyansh Thakur and Rishabh Kr. Singh, Advocates.