Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, who was married to the respondent in the year 2006, had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) seeking certain reliefs including damages and maintenance. During the pendency of the aforesaid application the appellant filed an application for interim maintenance which was granted by the learned trial court on 13.02.2008 at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. The order of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge on 09.07.2008. As against the aforesaid order, the respondent (husband) filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand.

“Section 2………

(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is or has been relative of the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to act of domestic violence by the respondent;

(b)… ( c )…

(d)….

(e)….

(f)…

(g)…

(h)….

(i)”relative” includes any person related by blood, marriage or adoption and living with the respondent.” Thereafter, the different clauses of the Bill were considered by a Parliamentary Standing Committee and recommendations were made that having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the proposed legislation, namely, to protect women from domestic violence and exploitation, clause (2)(i) defining “relative” may be suitably amended to include women who have been living in relationship akin to marriages as well as in marriages considered invalid by law. Pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation made by the Standing Committee, in place of the expression “relative” appearing in clause 2(i) of the Bill, the expression “domestic relationship” came be included in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act. Learned counsel by referring to the definition of “aggrieved person” and “domestic relationship” as appearing in the DV Act, 2005 has urged that the legislative intent to include women, living in marriages subsequently found to be illegal or even in relationships resembling a marriage, within the protective umbrella of the DV Act is absolutely clear and the same must be given its full effect. It is submitted that having regard to the above even if the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was void on account of the previous marriage of the appellant, the said fact, by itself, will not disentitle the appellant to seek maintenance and other reliefs under the DV Act, 2005.

(f) “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.”

9. Learned counsel, in all fairness, has also drawn the attention of the court to a decision rendered by a coordinate Bench in D. Velusamy vs. D.Patchaimmal[1] wherein this court had occasion to consider the provisions of Section 2(f) of the DV Act to come to the conclusion that a “relationship in the nature of marriage” is akin to a common law marriage which requires, in addition to proof of the fact that parties had lived together in a shared household as defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act, the following conditions to be satisfied:

11. Opposing the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant learned counsel for the respondent – husband has submitted that the object behind insertion of the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” in Section 2(f) of the DV Act is to protect women who have been misled into marriages by the male spouse by concealment of the factum of the earlier marriage of the husband. The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation which confers protection of different kinds to women who have been exploited or misled into a marriage. Learned counsel has pointed out that in the present case the situation is, however, otherwise. From the marriage certificate dated 18.04.2003 it is clear that the appellant was already married to one Rohit Kumar Mishra which fact was known to her but not to the respondent. The second marriage which is void and also gives rise to a bigamous relationship was voluntarily entered into by the appellant without the knowledge of the husband. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any of the benefits under the DV Act. In fact, grant of maintenance in the present case would amount to conferment of benefit and protection to the wrong doer which would go against the avowed object of the Act. Learned counsel has also submitted that the conduct of the appellant makes it clear that she had approached the court by suppressing material facts and with unclean hands which disentitles her to any relief either in law or in equity. In this regard the decision of this court in S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and others[2] has been placed before us.