A live-in relationship does not automatically equate to a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act; evidence of commitment and recognition akin to marriage is necessary.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.

(2) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21.05.2025 passed below Exhibit 10 in PWDV No.16/2023, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Washim, wherein the Exhibit 10 filed by the present petitioner, came to be rejected. Further, the petitioner is praying for quashing of the entire proceedings filed under the Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“Domestic Violence Act”) which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

(3) The learned counsel for petitioner submits that Exhibit 10 was filed by the petitioner raising preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the application filed by respondent herein under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. The application at Exhibit 10 was filed raising an objection on the ground that the application is not maintainable, as the petitioner and respondent are neither married nor have any relationship in the nature of marriage thereby having shared household. In view of the aforesaid, there was no domestic relationship between them at any given time and therefore, the respondent herein is not the aggrieved person.

(4) He further submits that the agreement which was placed on record by the respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner and respondent had a love affair, which has come to an end, that by itself would not fall under the definition of domestic relationship, which is defined under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. There is or was no relationship ever subsisting between the parties which could be gathered from various documents which are placed on record. My attention was invited to the First Information Report No.857/2022 lodged by one Sau. Lata Pandit Wankhede, wherein the name of the respondent was shown as ‘Sau Ranjana Ashok Polkar’. The said FIR has culminated into charge-sheet wherein also the name of the respondent is recorded as ‘Ranjana Polkar’ everywhere which could be gathered from different statements recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, an application filed by the respondent in Misc. Criminal Application No.551/2022 opposing the bail application of the present petitioner was pointed out wherein the name again is shown as ‘Ranjana Polkar’. Even in Election Petition Appeal No.11/2016, the respondent has shown her name as ‘Rajana Ashok Polkar’. Not only that, the respondent has also instituted Special Atrocity Case No.59/2014 against one Kashiram Sitaram Idhole, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, wherein while deposing before the Court she has shown her name as ‘Ranjana Dattatraya Mamidwar’, but also in the voters’ list and ration card her name appears as ‘Rajana Ashok Polkar’. Accordingly, he submits that from the entire record, it is clearly demonstrated that the petitioner does not have any relationship with the respondent and she is the wife of ‘Ashok Polkar’.

(5) He further submits that the petitioner is not husband and merely being in a live-in-relationship will not amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit under the Domestic Violence Act. To buttress his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sarm