Delhi District Court
Cc No. 1544/3/13, Ps-C. R Park Pratibha ... vs Aman Naugyal & Ors. on 17 November, 2015
CC No. 1544/3/13, PS-C. R Park Pratibha Mehra Vs Aman Naugyal & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE- 01, MAHILA COURT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. 1544/3/13
PS-C.R Park
PRATIBHA MEHRA
Vs
AMAN NAUGYAL
Order on Maintainability
1. Extensive arguments were heard on the
maintainability of the case. Record has been carefully
perused alongwith written arguments of the parties.
2. An application U/s 12 PWDV Act has been
filed by the applicant Pratibha Mehra alleging relationship
in the nature of marriage between her and the respondent
no.1.
3. The counsel for respondent has challenged the maintainability of the present case on the ground that the respondent no. 1 had a wife living and was, thus, not capable of entering into a live-in relationship with the complainant. She has further argued that there is no averment in the complainant with respect to sharing of Pronounced in open court on 17.11.2015 Page no 1 of 8 CC No. 1544/3/13, PS-C. R Park Pratibha Mehra Vs Aman Naugyal & Ors.
Domestic Household and has also challenged the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the parties are alleged to have lived together at Gurgaon and thus the Delhi Court will not have Jurisdiction to try the present case.
4. As far as the objection with respect to jurisdiction is concerned, the PWDV Act empowers the women to file a case before the Court who has territorial jurisdiction of the area wherein which she resides. In the present case, at the time of filing of the present case, the complainant was residing within the territorial Jurisdiction of PS C.R Park and thus this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case.
5. To claim relief under the present Act, the women need not be the wife of the respondent. Even female in a live-in relationship with respondent can claim maintenance, protection and other relief under the present Act, if it is proved that such relationship was a relationship in the relationship of marriage and fulfill the essential of such relationship.
Pronounced in open court on 17.11.2015 Page no 2 of 8 CC No. 1544/3/13, PS-C. R Park Pratibha Mehra Vs Aman Naugyal & Ors.
Section 2(f) of the Act reads as under:
"domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time , lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
From the bare perusal of the above said provision it is clear that expression "domestic relationship" includes not only the relationship of marriage but also the relationship " in the nature of marriage". The question therefore arises as to what is the meaning of expression relationship in the nature of marriage. Hon'ble Supreme Court in D Velusamy Vs. D Patchaiammal 2010 (4) LRC 133 (SC) has held that in a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriage requires that although not being formally married:-
a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
b) They must be of legal age to marry.
c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses.
A 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act must also fulfill Pronounced in open court on 17.11.2015 Page no 3 of 8 CC No. 1544/3/13, PS-C. R Park Pratibha Mehra Vs Aman Naugyal & Ors.
the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship'.
Not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and /or as a servant it would not, be a relationship in the nature of marriage'.
No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live in relationship'. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute."
6. As far as the sharing of Domestic Household is concerned, there is clear and specific averment in the application that the parties started residing together in domesticity the house of the respondent no. 1 bearing property no. F-205 AWHO Apartments, Gurgaon, Haryana w.e.f August 2010 onwards. Thus, there is no ambiguity on this aspect.
7. Now coming to the third objection. The Pronounced in open court on 17.11.2015 Page no 4 of 8 CC No. 1544/3/13, PS-C. R Park Pratibha Mehra Vs Aman Naugyal & Ors.
applicant allegedly met the respondent at Bombay in the year 2006 and at that time, the respondent no. 1 had informed the complainant that his marriage with his wife was not working well. Both of them became friends thereafter and started meeting each other and developed sympathies because of commonality of issues of their respective failed marriages. The complainant was already a divorcee whereas the respondent no. 1 was contemplating divorce from his wife. They kept meeting on and off when the respondent no. 1 had shifted to Delhi.
8. In the year 2010 Respondent no. 1 informed the applicant that he had obtained divorce from his wife in March 2010. Thereafter, both of them started residing together in full fledged live-in relationship w.e.f August 2010 onwards at the house of the respondent at Gurgaon.
9. The respondent no. 1 is stated to have proposed marriage to the complainant and on the insistence of the complainant, the respondent no. 1 fixed 30.11.2011 as the date of their marriage on the ground Pronounced in open court on 17.11.2015 Page no 5 of 8 CC No. 1544/3/13, PS-C. R Park Pratibha Mehra Vs Aman Naugyal & Ors.
that he had been rendered penny less by the divorce and he needed to save money for the solemnization of his marriage with complainant.
10. The parties lived together at the flat of the respondent bearing no. F-205, AWHO Apartments, Gurgaon, Haryana. The mother of the complainant visited their residence on 21.12.2010 and objected to the live-in relationship without solemnization of marriage between them. To satisfy the complainant's mother, the respondent no. 1 put Sindoor on the forehead of the complainant and took seven pheras at his flat itself. However, the respondent no. 1 fought bitterly with the after her mother left and even attempted to strangulate her.
11. On one occasion when the respondent no. 1 's daughter was scheduled to visit his flat, he asked the complainant to hide all her belongings so that the daughter does not come to know about their relationship.
12. There are several avermentrs in the application which prima facie go on to show the existence of live-in relationship such as the factum of parties living together after the respondent no. 1 allegedly informed the Pronounced in open court on 17.11.2015 Page no 6 of 8 CC No. 1544/3/13, PS-C. R Park Pratibha Mehra Vs Aman Naugyal & Ors.
complainant about finalization of his divorce. However, there are averments as well as non-exhibition of their relationship to the public at large such as the respondent no. 1 asked the complainant to hide her belongings so as to avoid bringing their relationship into the knowledge of his daughter.
13. From April 2010 till 05.04.2011, the complainant was under the belief that the divorce of respondent no. 1 had already been finalized in March 2010. Thus, the existence of live-in relationship during this period cannot be disputed on the ground of existence of the first marriage of respondent no. 1 as the same was deliberately suppressed from complainant. However, continuity of the said relationship, thereafter can be challenged on this ground. As such, there are several mixed questions of law and facts involved in the present case which cannot be decided at this stage and merits trial.
14. The other objection of respondent that the application has not filed the mandatory performa along with the application and has not specified any incident of Pronounced in open court on 17.11.2015 Page no 7 of 8 CC No. 1544/3/13, PS-C. R Park Pratibha Mehra Vs Aman Naugyal & Ors.
mental torture is not a ground for outright dismissal of the applications. DIR has already been called and there are several instances enumerated about commission of domestic violence as covered under the PWDV Act. Otherwise also PWDV Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and has to be construed liberally. This objection of respondent is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Now to come up for Complainant's evidence on 06.07.2016.
15. Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount as any expression of opinion on the merits of this case. Needless to say that the amount of maintenance paid in any other proceedings shall be adjusted. Interim maintenance application disposed of accordingly.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
(Shivani Chauhan) Mahila Court/MM-01/SED/Saket Courts, New Delhi/17.11.2015 Pronounced in open court on 17.11.2015 Page no 8 of 8