SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
Harshad Suresh Sonawane - Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent 
Criminal Application (Apl) No. 1479 of 2024
Decided on : 17-07-2025 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Prashant G. Pandey a/w Mr. Tushar Halwai for the
For the Respondent:Ms Dhanalakshmi Krishnaiyar, Ms Prajakta N. Deshmukh, Advocate

A marriage can only be declared void by a competent court; until then, maintenance obligations remain under the D.V. Act, affirming the necessity of legal recognition of marital status.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Applicability of domestic violence provisions in the context of void marriages - The court emphasizes that unless a marriage is officially declared invalid, the parties must be recognized as legally married, ensuring protection under the D.V. Act. (Paras 16, 20)

(B) The criteria for establishing a domestic relationship are emphasized, particularly where one party claims the marriage is invalid due to pre-existing relationships. Only a competent court can declare a marriage void, and this does not exempt one from obligations such as maintenance. (Paras 16, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant sought to challenge a conditional stay order compelling him to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- tied to a domestic violence complaint. He argued that Respondent No. 2 was not eligible to marry him due to existing matrimonial ties.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the Applicant's claims against Respondent No. 2, stating that unless a marriage is declared void, she is afforded protections under the D.V. Act.

Issues: The legal implications of a void marriage in the context of maintenance and the authority of the courts in determining marital validity.

Ratio Decidendi: It is established that the mere allegation of a void marriage does not release one from maintenance obligations unless officially nullified. The court reinforced that maintenance and other provisions of the D.V. Act stand until a competent court decides otherwise.

Result: Criminal Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background facts of the domestic violence case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding the validity of marriage and maintenance (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court's observations on marriage validity and domestic relationship (Para 15 , 17)
4. ratio decidendi regarding presumed validity of marriage (Para 18 , 19)
5. conclusion to dismiss the application (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

1. This Criminal Application has been filed by the Applicant assailing the conditional order dated 30th September 2024 passed on Exhibit – 4, i.e. Stay Application filed in PWDVA Appeal No. 15 of 2024, by directing the Applicant to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- as a precondition for stay. Respondent No. 2 has filed Domestic Violence Complaint bearing No. DV/57/2020 before the 10th J.M.F.C., CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the D.V. Act, 2005”). The J.M.F.C. at Belapur has passed the order dated 20th April 2024 on an Interim Application filed by Respondent No. 2 directing the present Applicant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- alongwith monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- towards the residence order to Respondent No. 2 till the decision of the main application.

2. It is the case of the Applicant that after having seen the profile of the Applicant on Matrimonial Site and also from Facebook profile Respondent No. 2 has met him, and after that they have decided to marry. Accordingly, their marriage was performed on 30th September 2017 at Trambakeshwar, Nashik in presence of the presence of parents of Respondent No. 2. After marriage, Respondent No. 2 has started making unreasonable demands with the Applicant. She has treated him with immense mental cruelty and has tormented him. Initially, after marriage they had shifted to Dhule, however, on the insistence of Respondent No. 2, he was required to shift back to Airoli.

3. Time and again, Respondent No. 2 has made demands of huge amounts of monies from him. According to him, Respondent No. 2 has demanded Rs.2 crores and her parents have demanded Rs.10 lakhs from the Applicant. The Applicant has transferred an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from his bank account to Respondent No. 2. For the entire year 2018-19, he was pressurized to give all his income to Respondent No.2 and her parents.

4. On 25th July 2018, Respondent No.2 has suddenly asked the Applicant to get their marriage registered, which he immediately approved off. However, when he received the marriage certificate he was shocked to see the date of marriage in the certificate which was recorded as 25th July 2018, instead of 30th September 2017. When he questioned Respondent No. 2 about it, she was evasive. According to him, once she had also come late night after consuming alcohol in the May 2018. He has narrated various incidents of his torture. According to him, because of constant mental harassment and fear for registering false case by Respondent No. 2, he was constrained to leave the house. Respondent No. 2 has registered an FIR vide C.R. No. 36 of 2020, alleging the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, 1860, against the present Applicant at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 22nd January 2020. The Applicant filed Anticipatory Bail Application which came to be allowed by the Sessions Judge, Thane. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 filed Domestic Violence Complaint bearing No. DV/57/2020 against the Applicant on 3rd March 2020. The Interim Application (Exhibit-5) came to be partly allowed by the J.M.F.C, 10th Court at Belapur vide order dated 20th April 2024. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20th April 2024, the Applicant has filed Appeal before the Additional Sessions Court at Belapur, Navi Mumbai, being PWDVA Appeal No. 15 of 2024.

5. During the pendency of the Appeal, Respondent No. 2 had filed an application for issuing distress warrant before the J.M.F.C., Belapur, which was allowed vide order dated 17th Aug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top