The court holds that a relationship in the nature of marriage qualifies as a domestic relationship under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, allowing the petitioner's complaint to proceed.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q), and 2(s) - Challenge to the dismissal of a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act - The court found that the petitioner, having claimed a relationship in the nature of marriage, can be deemed aggrieved despite respondent's claims regarding the friendship agreement and previous marriages. The impugned judgment set aside the order denying maintainability, emphasizing that the relationship, even if not legally defined as marriage, can still fall within domestic violence parameters. (Paras 14, 19, 21, and 22)

(B) Domestic Relationship - Definition - A relationship can qualify under the DV Act if the parties have lived together in a shared household, whether as spouses or in a relationship akin to marriage, dispelling the respondent's claims of non-relationship due to alleged prior marriages. (Paras 15, 19)

(C) Maintainability - The court reiterated that when determining the maintainability of a complaint, initial allegations must be taken at face value, thus allowing the petitioner's claims to stand for further investigation. (Paras 17)

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner was, at minimum, in a domestic relationship with the respondent that warranted addressing the allegations of domestic violence, restoring the case for further proceedings.

Issues: The central issues were whether the petitioner was an aggrieved person under the DV Act and the nature of the relationship between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the initial burden is to accept allegations of relationship in the nature of marriage as valid, allowing for the continuation of the complaint irrespective of prior claims made by the respondent regarding marriage and divorce.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned judgment set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of domestic violence complaint (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding marriage legality (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. definition and implications of domestic relationship under dv act (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. set aside impugned judgment (Para 21)
5. restoration of complaint case (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2016 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), West, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 54164/2016 titled as Naresh Chandel v. Anamika Chandel .

2. The learned ASJ, by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (‘DV Act’) filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 20.06.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), whereby the respondent’s application questioning the maintainability of the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act was dismissed.

3. The learned ASJ while referring to the Friendship Agreement dated 13.04.2006 executed between the parties, that mentions that the respondent is married to one Mrs. Kavita and has one child out of the said wedlock and that the petitioner is married to one Mr. Vijay Kumar who is the brother of the respondent, held that a case under Section 12 of the DV Act is not made out as neither the petitioner was an aggrieved person in terms of Section 2(a) of the DV Act, nor was the relationship between the parties in the nature of marriage.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

4.1. A complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act was filed by the petitioner alleging that the marriage between her and the respondent was solemnised on 22.04.2006, after which she resided with the respondent at her matrimonial home for almost seven years, where she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members on the pretext of dowry. The parties resided separately thereafter.

4.2. The respondent disputed the marriage and brought on record a Friendship Agreement executed between himself and the petitioner, marriage certificate dated 03.04.3006, the divorce decree dated 01.02.2008 as well as the letter dated 03.04.2006 written by the petitioner to the police, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was first married to the respondent’s brother namely– Mr. Vijay Kumar on 28.03.2006, and after the execution of the Friendship Agreement on 13.04.2006, the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 22.04.2006.

4.3. The petitioner in her rejoinder stated that she was already married to the respondent on 25.02.2006 and placed on record the marriage certificate dated 07.05.2014, wherein it is stated that the marriage between the parties took place on the even date at Shree Veshno Mata Mandir Samiti.

4.4. The learned MM, by order dated 20.06.2015, dismissed the application filed by the respondent questioning the maintainability of the complaint.

4.5. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned MM, the respondent filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, which came to be allowed by the impugned judgement, thereby setting aside the order dated 20.06.2015 passed by the learned MM and dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgement is erroneous and has been passed without application of mind.

6. He submitted that the petitioner is an aggrieved person in terms of Section 2(a) of the DV Act and that the relationship between the parties was in the nature of marriage.

7. He submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.02.2006 in a small gathering at the Veshno Mata Mandir, however the actual wedding with all relatives present, took place on 22.04.2006.

8. He submitted that the after the solemnisation of marriage on 25.02.2006, the respondent later informed the petitioner that he was alr