The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a woman is not entitled to claim interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) once her marriage has been declared null and void by a competent court. Justice Rajeev Misra set aside orders from two lower courts in Ghaziabad that had granted interim maintenance to a woman whose marriage was annulled because she had a subsisting marriage at the time of her second wedding.
The Court concluded that the decree of nullity relates back to the date of the marriage, effectively erasing any “domestic relationship” as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is a prerequisite for seeking relief under the said Act.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a criminal revision filed by Rajeev Sachdeva (the revisionist) challenging two orders. The first, an order dated August 23, 2022, by the Civil Judge (JD)/FTC-I, Ghaziabad, granted his wife, Nidhi Sachdeva (opposite party-2), interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month under Section 23 of the DV Act. The second was an order dated February 8, 2023, by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, which dismissed the husband’s appeal against the maintenance order.
The parties were married on February 22, 2015. Marital discord led to the wife lodging two FIRs against the husband and his family in 2015. During the hearing of an anticipatory bail application filed by the husband, it was discovered that the wife was already married. The Special Judge (PC Act), CBI East, KKD Court, Delhi, in an order dated March 31, 2016, recorded its displeasure with the wife’s conduct, stating:
“However, this court is very much disturbed with the conduct of the complainant. Before passover, the complainant must have come before the court with clean hands and must have informed about her marital status but she did not do the same.”
Following this revelation, the husband filed a suit (HMA No. 542 of 2019) before the Family Court in Karkarduma, Delhi, seeking a declaration that his marriage to the wife was null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Annulment of Marriage and Subsequent Proceedings
While the annulment suit was pending, the wife filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act in 2016, along with a plea for interim maintenance.
In the annulment proceedings, the wife filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court in Delhi rejected this application on February 4, 2021, on the grounds that the marriage was void ab initio due to her subsisting first marriage.
Subsequently, on November 20, 2021, the Family Court decreed the husband’s suit, formally declaring the marriage null and void. The wife’s appeal against this judgment before the Delhi High Court was dismissed as withdrawn on March 30, 2022, making the decree of nullity final.
Despite the finality of this decree, the wife pressed her application for interim maintenance under the DV Act. The Ghaziabad court allowed her application on August 23, 2022, and the husband’s subsequent appeal was also dismissed, prompting him to file the present criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Mr. Nipun Singh, counsel for the revisionist-husband, argued that the orders of the lower courts were manifestly illegal. He contended that on the date the maintenance order was passed, no “domestic relationship” or relationship “in the nature of marriage” existed between the parties, as the marriage had already been declared void. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010), which laid down that for a relationship to be “in the nature of marriage,” the parties must be qualified to enter into a legal marriage, which includes being unmarried.
He further cited Deoki Panjhiyara Vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Another (2013), where the Supreme Court observed:
“It is only upon a declaration of nullity or annulment of the marriage between the parties by a competent court that any consideration of the question whether the parties had lived in a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ would be justified.”
The husband’s counsel argued that since a competent court had already passed a decree of nullity, which had become final, the lower courts erred in granting maintenance under the DV Act.
Counsel for the wife argued that the maintenance order was interim in nature and the merits could be decided after evidence was led by both parties.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Rajeev Misra, after perusing the record, found it undisputed that the wife had married the revisionist during the subsistence of her previous marriage. The Court noted that the decree declaring the marriage null and void had attained finality.
The Court held that the legal effect of such a declaratory decree is that it relates back to the date of the marriage, rendering it void from the very beginning. The judgment stated:
“The logical outcome of the same shall be that once the marriage of the parties itself has been declared void-ab-initio, the subsequent relationship between the parties is of no consequence. As such, the factual position, which has emerged on record is that there is no relationship between the parties in terms of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 since 21.11.2021.”
The Court concluded that since the foundational “domestic relationship” was non-existent in the eyes of the law after the decree of nullity, the wife could not be considered an “aggrieved person” entitled to relief under the DV Act.
Allowing the criminal revision, the High Court set aside the order of the Civil Judge (JD)/FTC-I, Ghaziabad, dated August 23, 2022, and the order of the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, dated February 8, 2023.
