Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Parveen Tandon - Appellant
Versus
Tanika Tandon - Respondent
Crl M C No. 264 of 2021, 420 of 2021; Crl M A No. 1352 of 2021, 2196 of 2021, 8859 of 2021
Decided On : 07-06-2021
DV Act - Domestic Relationship - 12, 2(a), 2(f), 2(q), 2(s) - The court discussed the definition of 'aggrieved person', 'domestic relationship', 'shared household' under the DV Act. The judgment emphasized the need for evidence to establish the nature of the relationship and the shared household. The court highlighted the importance of evidence in determining the existence of a relationship in the nature of marriage and the entitlement to protection under the DV Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) alleging physical and mental abuse by the petitioner. The petitioner contested the maintainability of the application, arguing that the respondent was not an aggrieved person under the DV Act. The court was tasked with determining the nature of the relationship between the parties and the entitlement to interim maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that evidence was crucial in establishing the existence of a relationship in the nature of marriage and the shared household. It declined to interfere with the interim maintenance order, emphasizing the need for evidence to determine the entitlement to protection under the DV Act.
Issues: The key issues included the nature of the relationship between the parties, the shared household, and the entitlement to protection under the DV Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence to establish the nature of the relationship and the shared household, highlighting the importance of evidence in determining the entitlement to protection under the DV Act.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to decide the matter finally within a year. The court also directed safeguards to ensure the return of interim maintenance if the respondent was found not entitled to protection under the DV Act.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - 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
Grant of interim maintenance – Denial of relationship of husband and wife – Evidence to be adduced during trial – No interference required
(1) In order to maintain a petition under DV Act aggrieved person has to show that aggrieved person and respondent (man) lived together in a shared household and this could be even from a relationshi....
The court clarified that domestic relationship claims under the Act require rigorous factual scrutiny and evidence, especially regarding the existence of prior marriages and relationships.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to relief under the PWDV Act based on the finding of a domestic relationship, and the permissibility of adjustment of maintenance a....
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.
Maintenance – Existence of domestic relationship either by marriage or in nature of marriage is sine qua non to maintenance action under Section 12 of Act.
Section 28 of Act provides for following procedure to be followed by a Magistrate while dealing with application for reliefs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the statu....
The judgment establishes that even in the absence of proven marriage, a domestic relationship can be established based on the nature of the relationship between the parties, as defined in the DV Act ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
