CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
Smt. Santoshi Bai —Applicant
versus
Gangaram & Ors. —Non-Applicants
Criminal Revision No.617 of 2014
Decided on 15.5.2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Domestic relationship reveals that the legislation, in its wisdom, intended to protect a woman as an aggrieved person having domestic relationship of a very wide import and not merely confined to legally wedded Wife.

Headnote:(i) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 2(f) and 12 — “Domestic relationship” — Application for maintenance and other relief filed by petitioner-wife dismissed by Courts below on finding that appellant had earlier married another person and without valid divorce of earlier marriage she started residing with respondent after a customary marriage — Revision — “Domestic relationship” was of a very wide import and not merely confined to legally wedded wife — Factum of customary marriage with applicant was admitted by respondent and that applicant lived in shared household for five years — Even if it was assumed that marriage was not valid under law admitted fact that applicant residing with respondent in his house as his wife, accepted by all family members and even a child was born from their wedlock, partook the nature of domestic relationship — Petitioner was entitled to reliefs under the Act.

       Held: A logical and fair reading of the aforesaid definition of domestic relationship reveals that the legislation, in its wisdom, intended to protect a woman as an aggrieved person having domestic relationship of a very wide import and not merely confined to legally wedded Wife.

       This is clear from the plain language of the provision aforesaid where domestic relationship would include those who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

       The applicant has clearly stated in her application that she was married to non-applicant - Gangaram and resided with him for five years. In his reply, the’ respondent has not disputed the factum of marriage and the applicant residing with non-applicant - Gangaram as his wife and fully accepted by him and his family as his wife, residing with Ganqaram, Gangaram, however, has sought to oppose the prayer of the applicant on the ground that as the applicant was first married to one Ram Kumar and as there is no evidence of valid divorce between them, the applicant cannot claim legal status of legally wedded wife and therefore, not entitled to relief under the Act of 2005. However, neither in his pleading nor in his evidence before the Magistrate, he has disputed that he had performed marriage and thereafter, the applicant started residing with him as his wife in his house. He has admitted that a child was born out of their wedlock but died soon after taking birth. Pleading Pleadings of both the parties, proceed on admitted position that the applicant was residing with the non-applicant - Gangaram as his wife. However, pleadings of both the parties attempt to justify their respective stand. While case of the applicant has been that she has been unceremoniously shunted, out from matrimonial house, not provided maintenance, no allowed shelter in the matrimonial house and non- applicant I Gangaram having contacted second marriage, the case of Gangaram is that applicant’s father had taken her to the parental house for attending marriage of her brothers without due permission and tnerearter, when she was brought back’, an objection was taken to the manner in which she had left the matrimonial house, her father started quarrelling and thereafter, she was not brought back nor attended community meeting towards resolution of dispute. Therefore, the factum of marriage is fully admitted by the non-applicant/husband.

       The aforesaid admitted position on record satisfies the requirement of ‘domestic relationship’ as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 2005. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the marriage was not valid under the law, the admitted fact of applicant residing with Gangaram in his house as his wife, accepted by all member as his wife and even child born from their wedlock, undoubtedly partakes the nature of domestic relationship between them and covered within the clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act of 2005. Once it is held that the applicant was in domestic relationship with the respondent, the provisions of the Act are immediately attracted and come to the rescue of woman / the applicant, provided it is established that she has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the non-applicant. (Paras 11, 12 & 13)

       (ii) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 3 — “Domestic violence” — Provision is wide abuse of all forms — A dispute arose on applicant going to attend marriage of her brother and was brought back by her father to her matrimonial home — Respondent did not allow her to enter the house and demanded Rs. 25,000/- as a condition for re-entry — Applicant was subjected to economic abuse clothing and shelter.

       Held: From the aforesaid statement and evidence, it is crystal clear that a dispute arose on the. applicant going to attend the marriage of her brothers. There is abundance of reliable evidence that the applicant was brought back by her father to the matrimonial house as reflected from the evidence of both the parties. Non-applicant / Gangaram has not stated as to what efforts have been made to bring her back but states that she was taken by her father which appears to be wholly improbable. Having admitted that the applicant had come with the father to the matrimonial house, there is no reason why the applicant would refuse to reside in the matrimonial house. Therefore, the evidence led by the applicant that Rs.25,0001- was demanded by the husband of the applicant as a condition for re-entry in the matrimonial house, deserves to be accepted. Infact, the non-applicant witness-Mukhiram and Pitauram have stated that the issue of payment of Rs.25,000/- demanded from the applicant and her father by the non-applicants had arisen and later on applicant and her father did not appear in the community meeting, Therefore, irrespective of whether the applicant and her father attended the community meeting, this fact is clearly borne out that when the applicant had come with her father to the matrimonial house, the non-applicant reused to allow entry in house stating that RS.25,000/- will have to be paid before claiming such re-entry. It is thus clear that it is not the applicant but the non-applicant who denied the applicant her right of residence in the matrimonial house as also deprived her of all maintenance to which she is entitled to protect her as also necessary for her bare survival. Therefore, in these circumstances, the applicant has been subjected to ‘economic abuse’ as defined under Section 3 of the Act of 2005, which amongst other things, includes deprivation of economic and financial resources to which the applicant requires out of necessity including, but not limited to household necessities for herself for her bare maintenance, food, clothing and shelter. (Para 19)

       Result: Revision allowed.