The Bombay High Court has upheld the orders of the lower courts granting maintenance to a woman and her minor son under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), ruling that the Act is a progressive legislation intended to protect women irrespective of the strict validity of their marriage, provided a “domestic relationship” is established.
The Single Bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase dismissed the criminal revision applications filed by both the husband (challenging the maintenance order) and the wife (seeking enhancement), thereby confirming the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Sessions Court had directed the husband to pay Rs. 6,000 per month each to the wife and their minor son.
The Court observed that even if there is no legal proof of a ceremonial marriage, evidence suggesting cohabitation and a relationship in the nature of marriage is sufficient to invoke the remedies under the DV Act.
Background of the Case
The proceedings originated from an application filed by the wife and her son against the husband under Section 12 of the DV Act.
The wife claimed that she performed a “Temple marriage” with the husband on June 16, 2007, at Verul. She alleged that they lived together and had a son. According to her complaint, she was treated well initially but was later subjected to physical and mental cruelty, assault, and desertion in October 2011. She contended that the husband, a police department employee earning over Rs. 40,000 per month, had neglected to maintain her and the child.
The husband resisted the application, denying the factum of marriage and paternity. He alleged that the documents relied upon by the wife were fabricated and that she was previously married to one Jaywant Sitaram Sonawane.
Lower Court Decisions:
- The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Aurangabad, by order dated January 10, 2020, partly allowed the application, granting Rs. 3,000 per month each to the wife and son, along with Rs. 25,000 as compensation.
- The Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in an appeal, enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 6,000 per month each while maintaining the rest of the order. The husband’s appeal challenging the grant of maintenance was dismissed.
Both parties approached the High Court challenging the Appellate Court’s decision.
Arguments and Evidence
The wife relied on the evidence of her son from her first marriage, her sister, and her brother-in-law to establish the relationship. She produced photographs and government documents carrying the names of both parties.
The husband examined officials from the Municipal Corporation and the HR department of a company to prove the wife’s previous marriage to Jaywant Sonawane. He contended that since the marriage was not valid, she was not entitled to relief.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Waghwase analyzed the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The Court noted that the wife had placed sufficient material on record—including complaints to the police and Women Grievances Redressal Cell, photographs, and school documents of the child—to demonstrate that the parties had cohabited.
Referring to the scope of the DV Act, the Court observed:
“It is an enactment for providing immediate remedies to aggrieved woman.”
The Court relied on the following landmark Supreme Court judgments to support its reasoning:
- Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2019): Establishing that the DV Act provides an efficacious remedy for maintenance even if the victim is not a legally wedded wife, as a live-in partner is entitled to reliefs.
- Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011): Holding that a man who has lived with a woman for a long time should be made liable to pay maintenance if he deserts her, stating: “A man should not be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying advantages of a de facto marriage without following duties and obligations.”
- D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010): Discussing relationships in the nature of marriage akin to common law marriage.
The High Court noted that while there might be no “legal proof of alleged marriage at Verul,” the documentary and oral evidence, including the testimony of the wife’s relatives, supported the inference that there were “relations in the nature of marriage.”
The Court held:
“Consequently, though there is no legal proof of alleged marriage at Verul, there is other material as stated above including evidence of petitioner’s son from first marriage, her sister and her brother-in-law, who too claimed and endorsed relations between the parties as husband and wife.”
Decision
Finding no patent illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the lower courts, the High Court dismissed both revision applications.
“The existing legal provisions seem to be touched at respective places and time, and only on getting satisfied that wife is entitle to relief, the same has been extended.”
The Court confirmed the maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month each for the wife and son.
Upon the request of the husband’s counsel, who expressed an intention to approach the Supreme Court, the High Court continued the interim relief granted earlier for a period of six weeks.
Case Title: Janardhan s/o Bhimrao Harne vs. Rekha w/o Janardhan Harne and Another (and connected matter)
Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 2021
