Point of Law: Grant of interim maintenance – Denial of relationship of husband and wife – Evidence to be adduced during trial – No interference required

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. CRL.M.C. 264/2021 is directed against the order dated 14.01.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 110/2020 and CRL.M.C. 420/2021 is directed against the order dated 14.01.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 171/2020. Both the petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petitions are as under:

a) The respondent herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the DV Act”) before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, stating inter alia that she was married when she met the petitioner herein in the year 2009. She got married to him in the year 2014 after obtaining a divorce from her husband. It is stated that the applicant/respondent herein has a son namely, Master Jatin, aged 13 years, from her previous marriage. The child is presently studying in Shadley Public School, Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner herein is running a business of motor-parts from his shop. It is also stated that the petitioner herein has other shops which he has given on rent and he earns about Rs.10 lakhs per month from his business. It is stated that the petitioner herein had not disclosed his marital status to the applicant/respondent herein when they both met so as to induce the respondent to marry him. It is further stated that the petitioner herein executed a Marriage Agreement to show his genuineness and responsibility towards the applicant/respondent herein and her child. It is stated that in the agreement it was mentioned that the applicant/respondent herein was married and has a son from her previous marriage. It is stated that later the petitioner herein told the respondent that his wife is on dialyses and would not survive long and therefore he is looking for a life partner and that he is going to marry the applicant/respondent herein. It is stated that the applicant/respondent herein took divorce from her husband and got married to the petitioner herein on 21.11.2014. It is stated that another Agreement-cum-Marriage Deed was entered into between the petitioner herein and the applicant/respondent herein on 22.11.2014. It is stated that the petitioner herein had arranged a rental accommodation and both of them were living as husband and wife. It is further mentioned that the name of the petitioner herein is shown as the father of the child of the applicant/respondent herein in the school records. It is also stated that in the bank accounts of the respondent herein, the petitioner is shown as a nominee. It is stated that differences arose between the parties and the applicant/respondent was subjected to physical and mental abuse by the petitioner herein. It is stated that the applicant/respondent herein filed an FIR against the petitioner herein. The applicant/respondent herein therefore prayed for an order restraining the petitioner herein from evicting the applicant/respondent herein from the rented accommodation. An application for grant of interim maintenance has also been filed by the respondent herein.

b) Summons were issued to the petitioner herein. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 31.07.2020 restrained the petitioner herein from dispossessing the applicant/respondent herein from the property bearing House No.435, Indra Vihar, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. An application for the rectification of the said order was filed stating that the address in the order was not correct.

c) The petitioner herein prayed for recall of summons and dismissal of the application filed by the respondent herein contending that the respondent herein is not entitled to any relief under the DV Act because the respondent herein is not an aggrieved person inasmuch as the petitioner and the respondent had never been in a domestic relationship which is