Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.Jamadar, J.
Aditya Anand Varma – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 650 of 2021
Decided On : 10-06-2022
Domestic Violence - Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [Domestic Violence] - [Domestic Violence Application No.112/DV/2020] - [Sec. 2(a), Sec. 2(f), Sec. 2(s), Sec. 17 of the DV Act, 2005] - The court discussed the definitions of 'aggrieved person', 'domestic relationship', and 'shared household' under the DV Act, 2005. It emphasized that the right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or beneficial interest in the same. The court also highlighted the expansive interpretation given to the definition of 'shared household' and the protection provided to women in a domestic relationship, even if they have not actually shared the household. The judgment emphasized the importance of the right of a woman to reside in the shared household, especially in the Indian societal context, and the need to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, who had secretly solemnized marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Respondent No.2 alleged physical and mental harassment and abuse by the Petitioner No.1 after the marriage. The Petitioners resisted the allegations, contending that the Respondent No.2 was never in a domestic relationship with them and had never resided in the shared household.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing that the right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or beneficial interest in the same. The court also highlighted the expansive interpretation given to the definition of 'shared household' and the protection provided to women in a domestic relationship, even if they have not actually shared the household.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Respondent No.2 was in a domestic relationship with the Petitioners and had the right to reside in the shared household, despite not actually residing there.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or beneficial interest in the same. The judgment highlighted the expansive interpretation given to the definition of 'shared household' and the protection provided to women in a domestic relationship, even if they have not actually shared the household.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties,heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code'), takes exception to an Order dtd. 20/1/2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, on an Application (Exhibit 9) preferred by the Petitioners to dismiss the Domestic Violence Application No.112/DV/2020 filed by the Respondent No.2 - complainant, whereby the said application came to be rejected.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this Petition, can be stated as under :
(a) Respondent No.2 was working with Jet Airways (International) as a cabin crew head. The Petitioner No.1 is a businessman. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the Petitioner No.1. With a view to have a matrimonial alliance, the families of Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 got introduced. The Roka (engagement) ceremony between the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 was held on 6/5/2018 at the residence of the Petitioners at Mumbai. The Petitioners claimed that on 23/8/2018, the said engagement was broken off.
(b) The Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2, however, secretly solemnized marriage on 26/11/2018 under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 at Kolkata.
(c) The Respondent No.2's take on the development in the intervening period is that the Petitioners demanded a sum of Rs.1.00 Crore for hosting a grand reception ceremony, post marriage, at a resort in Lonavala. Respondent No.2's family could, however, arrange and advance a sum of Rs.10.00 Lakhs to the Petitioner No.2. On account of the failure of the Respondent No.2's family to meet the huge demand of Rs.1.00 Crore, the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 got enraged and threatened the Respondent No.2 with dire consequences. Eventually, under the subterfuge of the horoscope of the Respondent No.2 not matching with that of the Petitioner No.1 and the former being a manglic, the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 claimed that they were advised against the martial bond between the Petitioner Nos.1 and Respondent No.2. However, since the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were deeply in love with each other, they decided to solemnize the marriage behind back of their parents and, accordingly, the marriage was solemnized on 26/11/2018.
(d) Respondent No.2 alleges that, post marriage, the Petitioner No.1 subjected her to physical and mental harassment and abuse. The Respondent No.2 claimed that she tolerated the harassment with a hope that the behaviour of the Petitioner No.1 would improve with the passage of time.
(e) On 2/1/2019, the Petitioner No.1 apprised the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 about the solemnization of the marriage with the Respondent No.2 on 26/11/2018. Thereupon, the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 allegedly abused and humiliated the Respondent No.2 and her family members. Initially, the Petitioner No.1 assured to convince and win over his parents. However, the Respondent No.2 alleges, the Petitioner No.1 gradually withdrew himself from the society of Respondent No.2. Repeated efforts by Respondent No.2 to join the matrimonial home, were frustrated by the Petitioners. Alleging acts of physical and emotional harassment and economic abuse, the Respondent No.2 preferred a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act, 2005') and sought various reliefs envisaged under the DV Act, 2005, including the protection order, residence order and monetary relief.
(f ) The Petitioners appeared and resisted the Application by filing a written statement.
(g) The Petitioners also took out an Application for dismissal of the complaint, contending, inter alia, that from the date of solemnization of the marriage i.e. on 26/11/2018 till 2/1/2019, the day the Petitioner No.1 disclosed the factum of marriage to the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3,
The right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or benef....
A divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband.
Strict proof of marriage is not required to establish a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act, allowing for claims based on cohabitation and the relationship's nature.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the statu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a divorced woman is entitled to the right of residence under S.17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 only if she is i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly in relation to the right of women to r....
The need for specific and substantial allegations of domestic violence to support proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Award of maintenance – It is not mandatory for aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
