Delhi District Court
Neelam Mehta vs Suresh Nanda on 7 April, 2017
New CC No. 616711/2016
Neelam Mehta Vs Suresh Nanda
PS-New Friends Colony
U/s-12 PWDV Act
07.04.2017
Neelam Mehta
Vs
Suresh Nanda
At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that vide this
cumulative order the following two application of the respondent shall be
decided:-
(1) Application dated 03.06.2013 seeking dismissal of complaint and modification of order dated 19.02.2013.
(2) Application U/s 25 of PWDV Act seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of maintainability.
Coming first to the application u/s 25 of PWDV Act. Section 25 of PWDV Act provides for alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under PWDV Act if there is a change in the circumstances. It is clear that the present petition U/s.12 PWDV Act is being challenged on the ground of maintainability. A perusal of the application u/s 25 of PWDV Act, 2005 filed by the respondent reveals that by the said application respondent is claiming the same relief as has been sought vide the application seeking dismissal of the complaint. Thus, no modification, alteration or revocation has been sought, instead it has been prayed that prayer 7 (III) clause (c) to (e) of the application u/s 12 PWDV Act be rejected at the very threshold. Thus basically what is sought is the dismissal of the entire petition u/s 12 PWDV Act. Thus the application u/s 25 PWDV Act filed Neelam Mehta Vs Suresh Nanda Page no 1 of 6 by the respondent is being dismissed as being infructuous at this stage.
Now vide this Order, the pending application by the respondent challenging the very maintainability of this complaint U/s 12 PWDV Act shall be decided.
The material facts as culled out from the complaint and the application of the respondent challenging the maintainability are as follows:
According to the complainant, she met the respondent fo the first time in 1989 and upon the insistence by him, she entered into an intimate relationship with him in 1991 despite the fact that both of them were legally married at that time. Thereafter, the complainant ceased to have any relationship with her husband, although she continued to live with him for a few years thereafter and even the respondent told her that he was continuing with his marriage only for the sake of his children. It is the case of the complainant that a baby girl was also born out of her relation with the respondent. Thereafter, both of them continued to have a relationship in the nature of marriage and presented themselves to the society as such and spent a lot of time living together while celebrating important life milestones together in public view. It is also the averment of the complainant that all her living expenses and that of the daughter born out of this relationship were borne by the respondent himself for many years. However, this relationship turn sour when the complainant got to know about respondent's love affairs with other women and she confronted him in 2008. Thereafter, the respondent allegedly started ill treating the complainant and the relationship took a nose dive when finally, after various instances of violence upon her, the respondent continued Neelam Mehta Vs Suresh Nanda Page no 2 of 6 having relationship with another woman namely Bina.
On the other hand, in the two applications seeking dismissal of this complaint on different grounds, the respondent has denied all the averments as mentioned in the complaint. It has been denied that the parties ever had any relationship in the nature of marriage or that any child was born out of any relationship between the parties.
Coming now to the application of the respondent dated 03.06.2013 wherein, dismissal of this complaint has been sought on the ground that the complainant lacks any locus standi to move this application as she does not qualify as an 'aggrieved person' as defined U/s 2(a) PWDV Act. It has been averred in this application that the parties never had any 'Domestic Relationship' as defined U/s 2(f) PWDV Act.
On the other hand, in the reply to this application filed by the complainant dated 23.08.2013, it has been averred that since this Court has already summoned the respondent, this Court has no power to now decide the maintainability of this Complaint, this Court being governed by CrPC and therefore lacking powers of review. Also, it has been mentioned in the reply that indeed the parties had a relationship in the nature of marriage.
It is settled law that the maintainability of the petition has to be decided on the strength of the petition itself i.e only considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the petition itself. Therefore at the outset, the petition must satisfy all the ingredients necessary under the PWDV Act as far as legal maintainability is concerned, and the issue of legal maintainability can be raised at any point of time. The mere fact that summons were issued qua the respondents does not mean that it was a legal stamp on the maintainability of the petition. There may be instances Neelam Mehta Vs Suresh Nanda Page no 3 of 6 which may be brought to the notice of the Court after due opportunity of hearing is given to both sides which can only be done after the other party being the respondent in this case, is served with notice/summons. Thus mere issuance of summons cannot be taken as a bar to the right of any party challenging the maintainability of a petition.
A detailed perusal of the record reveals that the complaint falls miserably on this ground. For reasons discussed at length below, this Court is not satisfied that the complainant and the respondent had any Domestic Relationship between them which is a pre-requisite for any complaint to survive Under PWDV Act.
According to the complainant, she had a relationship in the nature of marriage with the respondent. Now for such a relationship to entitle her any relief under the PWDV Act, the relationship must meet the test as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the celebrated Judgment of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaimmal (2010)10 Supreme Court Cases 469 which requires the following condition to be fulfilled :-
(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 for a significant period of time.
Now even though, the conditions mentioned at serial no. a, b & d may a matter of fact which may require appreciation of evidence. However, condition at serial no. c is purely a legal one and therefore, even at this stage, it is obvious that neither of the parties to these proceedings Neelam Mehta Vs Suresh Nanda Page no 4 of 6 met this condition. According to the complainant herself, she was very much married and living with her husband when she entered into a relationship with the respondent. Infact, she did not even immediately initiate any action to terminate her marriage and it is her own submission that she continued her relationship with the respondent and even allegedly conceived his child while living with her husband all this while. Only in 1997, did the complainant start living with the respondent in UK, Delhi and Dubai allegedly permanently and even at this time, both the parties were very much legally married. Even the respondent is legally married to one Mrs. Renu Nanda and he has never been divorced from her. Thus, the respondent was never qualified to enter into a legal marriage as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Velusamy's case (Supra).
In such circumstances, neither of the parties had any legal capacity to marry. Therefore any relationship between the them cannot be termed as a relationship in the nature of marriage.
The Judgments relied upon by the complainant have been carefully perused. However, none of them support the claim of the complainant as none of them have overruled the law as laid down in D. Velusamy (Supra). The Chanmuniya case dealt specifically with Section 125 CrPC and any reference to the provisions of PWDV Act are only obiter. Similar is the fate of the Judgment of Ramesh Chandra. Similarly in the Indira Sharma Vs V.K. V Sharma case, there is nothing contrary to the law as laid down in Velusamy's Case. Infact in Indira Sharma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court denied any relief to the woman on the ground that she entered into a relationship with the respondent knowing well that he was already married.
Thus, no relationship between a legally married man and Neelam Mehta Vs Suresh Nanda Page no 5 of 6 woman qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage for the purposes of PWDV Act.
Therefore, the complainant cannot be said to be having any Domestic Relationship with the respondent as alleged by her.
Thus, it is clear from the above mentioned discussions that the petition of complainant against respondent u/s 12 PWDV Act is not maintainable. Hence dismissed.
Copy for order be given dasti.
(Chetna Singh)
MM/Mahila Court-01/SED/Saket Courts,
New Delhi/ 07.04.2017
Neelam Mehta Vs Suresh Nanda Page no 6 of 6