Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3230
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Rajeev Sachdeva - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 1351 of 2023
Decided On : 09-07-2025
For the Revisionist : Nipun Singh, Sumit Suri.
For the Opposite Parties : Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Balbeer Singh, Dhruv Kumar Dhuriya, G.A., Saurabh Shukla.
A marriage declared void ab initio negates any subsequent domestic relationship for claims under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12 and 23 - Orders granting interim relief and dismissing appeal therein challenged - Opposite party's marriage was declared void ab initio, nullifying any domestic relationship as per Section 2(f) of the Act. - The court held that the orders issuing interim maintenance were unsustainable since no relationship existed according to statutory definitions. (Paras 1, 14, 24, 27)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that once a marriage is declared void, it relates back to the date of marriage, negating any subsequent claims arising from said marriage. (Paras 24, 27)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist was aggrieved by orders allowing maintenance to the opposite party despite prior judgment declaring the marriage null and void. Both the trial court and appellate court's orders were challenged for being illegal and beyond jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the impugned orders were not sustainable due to lack of an existing legal relationship.
Issues: The principal issue concerned whether the maintenance order was valid given the prior declaration of the marriage as void.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a valid marriage precludes claims under the Act, confirming the order must be set aside as there existed no domestic relationship post-annulment.
Result: Revision allowed; impugned orders set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Misra, J.
1. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by Civil Judge (JD)/FTC-I, Ghaziabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13157 of 2020 ( Smt. Nidhi Sachdeva Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva and Others ), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station-Kaushambi, District- Ghaziabad, whereby the application for interim relief in terms of Section 23 of aforementioned Act has been allowed as well as the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.-3, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2022 ( Rajeev Sachdeva Vs. State of U.P. and Another ), under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, whereby aforementioned appeal filed by revisionist against order dated 23.08.2022 has been dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Nipun Singh, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Saurabh Shukla, the learned counsel representing complainant/opposite party-2.
3. Perused the record.
4. It transpires from record that marriage of opposite party-2 was solemnized with revisionist on 22.02.2015 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, subsequently, it appears that differences arose between the parties on account of marital discord. Resultantly, opposite party-2 lodged an FIR dated 08.07.2015, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0414 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 406, 313, 354(A)(1), 509, 323, 34 IPC, Police Station-Geeta Colony, District-East Delhi. Thereafter, another FIR dated 27.09.2015 was lodged by opposite party-2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0948 of 2015, under Sections 451 , 323, 34 IPC, Police Station-Vivek Vihar (East), District-East Delhi.
5. In respect of Case Crime No. 0414 of 2015, the accused persons including the revisionist filed anticipatory bail application before the competent Court. During course of hearing of the anticipatory bail application, it was discovered by Court that opposite party-2 is already married. The said fact was noted in the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by Special Judge (PC Act), CBI East, KKD Court, Delhi. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated 31.03.2016 is quoted herein under;-
“Before passover, during arguments, the court was trying to reconcile the dispute between the parties. At that time, few lawyers informed the court that complainant was earlier married and Ist/IInd Motion is pending. However, complainant denied this fact and passover was sought. Thereafter, one Advocate Sh. Amit Sharma, who is now present in court, informs the court that complainant was earlier married and she has concealed this fact from the court. When the court confronts the complainant, only then, complainant informs the court that she was earlier married and had got legal divorce and this fact was informed to the applicants and it was agreed between the parties that this matter should always be amongst the parties. However, this court is very much disturbed with the conduct of the complainant. Before passover, the complainant must have come before the court with clean hands and must have informed about her marital status but she did not do the same. When O was questioned about this fact, he states that he has come to know for the first time today that complainant is already married. Similarly, Sh. Akhtar Shamim, Advocate for the complainant also states that he was also not aware of the fact that complainant is already married. FIR perused. In the FIR, nothing is mentioned about the marital status of the complainant and it is also not mentioned that complainant was earlier married.”
Ultimately, the accused were granted anticipatory bail, vide order dated 07.05.2016.
6. Against order dated 07.05.2016, opposite party-2 filed bail cancellation application, which was rejected, vide order dated 28.07.2016 with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The Court again reprimanded opposite party-2 for abusing the process of Court.
