Valid marital status must be established to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act; mere assertions without supportive evidence are insufficient.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein being respondent No.1 in Crl.Misc.No.512/2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan [for short, ‘the Trial Court’] is impugning the order dated 28.10.2021 allowing Crl.Misc.No.512/2015 in part against the petitioner herein and directing him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the date of order, which was modified in Criminal Appeal No.5025/2022 on the file of the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar sitting at Basavakalyan [for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’] vide judgment dated 10.10.2022, wherein the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and has ordered the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent herein from the date of petition i.e., 01.01.2015 till her remarriage or death.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent herein as petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.512/2015 before the Trial Court against the present petitioner alleging that, he is her husband, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her parents-in-law. She filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short, ‘the D.V. Act’] claiming protection order under Section 18 , resident order under Section 19 , maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month under Section 20, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 22 of D.V. Act. The Trial Court, while allowing the petition in part, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- against the petitioner herein while rejecting the claim against his parents and also the reliefs claimed under Sections 18 , 19 and 22 of D.V. Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has preferred Criminal Appeal No.5025/2022. The First Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard Smt. Vijaya M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Vidya S. Totad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record, including the Trial Court records.

4. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the revision petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following reasons:

REASONS

5. It is the contention of the respondent herein that, she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. She was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and she was ousted from the matrimonial house. In the meantime, she had begotten a son by the name Sidharth. It is pertinent to note that, the respondent has examined herself as PW.1, got examined PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 in support of her contention. While the petitioner herein as respondent before the Trial Court examined RW.1 to RW.3 and got marked Exs.R1 to R20 in support of his contention. The cross-examination of PW.1 to PW.3 discloses that, the petitioner herein has denied his relationship with the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent has examined himself as RW.1. Even he was subjected to cross-examination, and except suggesting the contention taken by the petitioner and getting denial, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version.

6. The respondent herein who is examined as PW.1 was subjected to cross-examination where she admitted that, her sister Priyanka had married one Sanjukumar but denied the suggestion that she also married said Sanjukumar. She denied the suggestion that, there is no relationship