The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to establish a shared household and domestic relationship under the DV Act, 2005, and the implications of a valid decree of nullity or declaration in cases of disputed marriages for claiming benefits under the Act.

1. This application under section 482 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated May 31, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2016 thereby reversing the order dated July 25, 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Bankura in Misc. Case No. 93 of 2015 under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) , inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Appeal Court failed to consider that neither the relationship between the parties is one of the marriage nor in the nature of marriage has been established from any of the evidence from which the appeal court below is empowered to pass such an order and accordingly the petitioner has assailed the order impugned not sustainable in the eye of law as it would appear from the claim made by the Opposite Party no. 1, alleged ‘aggrieved person’ that she claimed herself to be the wife of the petitioner and prayed for relief to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month and further pointed out that the petitioner got married with the Opposite Party No. 1 and that marriage was solemnized on September 26, 2012 as per the Hindu rites and customs and they started living in the rented premises at the house of Swapan Das and thereafter shifted to Smt. Sefali Dey and lastly they started living at the house of Monoranjan Pal.

2. Having received the summons the petitioner filed a suit for negative declaration before the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) 1st Court at Bankura being Title Suit No. 18 of 2016 which is still pending. On 25.07.2016 the petition under section 23 of the said Act came up for hearing for passing the order for interim monetary relief and on contested hearing, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Bankura rejected the application by passing a reasoned order. The order of the learned Magistrate was assailed before the learned appeal court below and the appeal court by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2017 allowed the application under section 23 of the said Act whereby the learned judge directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as interim monetary relief.

3. It is submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in not considering the fact that there was no relationship between the parties as they are not married couple nor they are living in the nature of marriage and no such evidence has been adduced to establish the said fact. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order as bad in law.

4. It would appear from the order of the learned Magistrate that the learned Magistrate was of the view that the fact stated by the petitioner in his written objection is a total denial of the allegation leveled against him by the Opposite Party No. 1 as there is no matrimonial relationship between them. Whereas the positive case of the respondent/present petitioner was that the petitioner is not his wife and no matrimonial relationship between them exist and that she was a married lady being wife of one Pradip Dey who is stated to be missing and she could not trace him out in-spite of her best effort.

5. The petitioner made out a prima facie case before the Magistrate that he being a businessman used to visit Bankura Sadar Court in connection with a case on regular basis and the Opposite Party No. 1 being a law clerk of the Bankura Judges’ Court requested her to do his court work and to help her, and considering her helplessness the respondent agreed to do so and on 18.05.2015 the petitioner/opposite party no. 1 asked for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-from the respondent/present petitioner for her husband’s treatment as loan but the present petitioner/respondent refused to give such amount which resulted in altercation between them and claimed relief as such in this application that she happens to be wife of the present petitioner. The petitioner has already f