JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - By way of instant revision petition, the petitioner is impugning the order dated 19th July, 2021, vide which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dismissed his appeal, which was preferred against the order of the learned CJM, passed under Section 12 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'DV Act').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that both the Courts below failed to appreciate and rather ignored the fact that the respondent had failed to prove her marriage with the petitioner and hence her complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, was not maintainable. He further contends that since there was no material on record qua the domestic relationship between the parties, the petitioner was, therefore, not liable to maintain the respondent. Moreover, the respondent had failed to bring on record any proof by way of any material evidence that she had ever lived with the petitioner.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is as under:-

"2(f) "domestic rel