IMPORTANT POINT
A woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provided the relationship meets the definition of domestic relationship.

ORDER :

1. Heard on the point of admission.

2. This revision under 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant against the judgment dated 02.08.2024, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh District Korea in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2023 by which the learned Second Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the applicant under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, arising out of order dated 27.02.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janakpur District Korea in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14 of 2021, allowing the application filed by the respondent, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2000/- per month to his respondent No.2 towards maintenance and also compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in five installments.

3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2016 and from their wedlock respondent No. 2 was born. The respondent No.1 filed an application under 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before Judicial Magistrate First Class Janakpur for grant of maintenance contending that the applicant has tortured her by consuming liquor and used filthy language which has compelled her to file a complaint before Police against the applicant thereafter respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short as D.V. Act, 2005) claiming relief for maintenance.

4. The applicant filed reply to the application mainly contending that he is already married and he has three children. It has also been contended that no marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized, as such there is no question of birth of respondent No.2 from their wedlock. The documents submitted by the respondent No.1 are forged and fabricated. It has also been contended that she was working as Anganbadi worker therefore, she has prepared forged and fabricated record and would submit that the complaint under Section 12 of the Act is not maintainable.

5. This Court while admission stage itself has called for the records of the Courts below and following facts were revealed from the evidence and material placed before it.

6. The respondent No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and Kaushaliya Bai as PW-2 whereas the applicant has examined himself as DW-1 and Chhirsai as DW-2. The applicant in his evidence has stated that her marriage was solemnized with present applicant in the 2015 at the time of Diwali and he is her husband. She has also stated that soon after birth of respondent No.2 the applicant has left her on 15.08.2017. She lodged the complaint before Police Station and an agreement was arrived at between them. In the evidence she was asked specifically whether the applicant is a married person and facts of three children is of known to her or not which has been denied by the applicant. The applicant is getting salary of Rs. 32,000/- as he has posted as forest guard in the forest department whereas the respondent No.1 is working as Aganbadi worker and she is getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- which is not sufficient for her and for her daughter also. The other witness namely Smt. Kaushaliya Bai had supported her case.

7. The applicant in his evidence has denied the factum of marriage as well as birth of girl child from their relationship and rest of the averments made in the pleading as well as evidence adduced by respondent No. 1 were also denied by him. The applicant in the cross examination was asked about raising of objection regarding mentioning of his name in place of father’s name, he has denied the same and stated that since he was not aware, therefore, there is not required for him to raise objection. The applicant was also confronted with the agreement wherein he has admitted that he will keep respondent No.1 as his wife but in the cross-examinatio