JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. A. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner preferred the present criminal revision petition before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Add. Sessions Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2013 arising out of the judgment and order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 116 M /2013 providing the protection under Section 18/19/20(2) of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. The respondent remarried the petitioner in 2007 without disclosing her earlier marriage with one Pulin Kumar Das, son of Pratap Ch. Das of Kahilipara, Guwahati -1. After solemnization of marriage, the petitioner came to know that she had a living spouse at a time of marriage with him. The respondent filed the various case including the aforesaid Misc. case seeking the monetary and residential relief under the provision of D.V. Act, 2005. The petitioner appeared and filed his written statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup. The petitioner took various pleas in his written statement including the plea that the respondent had a living spouse at the time of remarriage with the petitioner. The allegation of concealment of earlier marriage by the respondent was not denied by the respondent by filing any objection. In order to prove earlier marriage of the respondent with said Pulin Kumar Das, the documents of divorce proceeding initiated by the respondent in the Family Court, Kamrup was brought on record of the said case. The respondent admitted, in her cross examination, having filed the divorce petition against the said Pulin Kumar Das but stated that it was marriage by agreement, hence, not valid. After recording of evidence of both parties, learned trial court passed the judgment and order providing the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and also a room for her accommodation premises Rs.10,000/- as compensation vide the judgment and order dated 1.4.2013. The learned trial court passed the judgment without deciding the validity of earlier marriage and held that even if earlier marriage is proved the petitioner has got domestic relationship with the respondent. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide Criminal Appeal No.83/2013. By the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013, the learned appellate court upheld the judgment and order of the trial court. Hence, this revision petition.

4. The challenge made in this petition is that the learned trial court has failed to understand the legal proposition of law that an already married woman cannot have a domestic relationship with another person to whom she subsequently married and as such the subsequent marriage of woman is itself void (ipso jury) and she cannot claim to have any domestic relationship to claim any relief under the Domestic Violence Act. The findings of the both the courts below that the earlier marriage was an agreement marriage, is without any basis and proof whereas the documents filed by the respondent itself belied her case. Hence, it is prayed that the findings arrived at by the courts below is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has vehemently argued that the respondent/wife entered into the marriage with the present petitioner by suppressing the facts of her earlier marriage with one Pulin Kumar Das and remarried the petitioner in the year 2007 and he was totally unaware about such subsisting marriage of the respondent. After such revealment of earlier marriage of the respondent, such a marriage with the petitioner is void ab initio.

6. By referring to the evidence adduced by both the parties as well as the documents as has been referred above the learned counsel