IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
Dhanu Hansdah and others – Petitioners
Versus
Arati Murmu @ Hansdah and another – Opp. Parties
CRLREV No.15 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to lower court's decision (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of domestic relationship between parties (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding maintainability of the proceeding (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. opposite party's claims about marital status (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. legal principles surrounding marriage and relationships (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. examination of evidence for marital claims (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. order allowing the revision in part (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
1. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned judgment as at Annexure-6 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj, whereby, the decision dated 15th December, 2022 of the learned SDJM, Rairangpur in CMC Case No.03 of 2021 in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been overruled on the grounds inter alia that the same is legally not tenable and hence, it is liable to be interfered with and set aside.
2. The opposite parties approached the learned SDJM, Rairangpur with an application under Section 12 of the Act demanding various reliefs therein against the petitioners with the allegations that petitioner No.1 is not providing maintenance to them. In the said proceeding, the petitioners appeared and challenged the maintainability of the same and pleaded for a decision thereon as a preliminary issue. Such request of the petitioners was entertained by the Court and finally, the impugned order dated 15th December, 2022 at Annexure-5 was passed with a conclusion that no any relief can be granted to the opposite parties as opposite party No.1 is not to be treated as an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act. With such a conclusion reached at, the learned SDJM, Rairangpur dismissed the application filed under of the Act for not being maintainable. Being aggrieved of, the opposite parties preferred the appeal under Section 2 9 of the Act and it was disposed of vide Annexure-6 with the conclusion that the maintainability of the proceeding can only be adjudicated upon after receiving evidence from both the sides. The conclusion of the Court below is that the status of opposite party No.1 and her claim regarding divorce and relationship with petitioner No.1 being accepted as a wife are disputed by the petitioners, it can only be examined upon receiving evidence as all such issues are questions of fact determinable at the end of the proceeding and accordingly, it was followed by a direction to the learned SDJM, Rairangpur for its disposal in accordance with law. The aforesaid decision of the learned court below is under challenge at the behest of the petitioners on the premise that there has been no domestic relationship ever existed between them and opposite party No.1, who is a married woman with her first marriage still subsisting by the time when the alleged relationship was maintained.
3. Petitioner No.1 is alleged to be the husband of opposite party No.1 and father of opposite party No.2, whereas, petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are his other family members. As earlier discussed, the opposite parties moved the application under Section 12 of the Act seeking reliefs under the Act with the plea that opposite party No.1 is the legally married wife of petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 to be their son born out of their wedlock. It has been pleaded by opposite party No.1 that petitioner No.1 accepted her as his wife before the village gentlemen and it was followed by an agreement. By claiming that such a relationship has been maintained between the two with petitioner No.1 providing them the monthly maintenance between July, 2019 and December, 2020, it has been further pleaded that thereafter, no support or any financial assistance was received by them. With such other facts pleaded on record, the opposite parties demanded maintenance and other reliefs before the
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.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the crucial role of evidence in determining the nature of the relationship and the entitlement to protection under the DV Act.
(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....
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 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....
Section 28 of Act provides for following procedure to be followed by a Magistrate while dealing with application for reliefs.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.