IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 relationship in nature of marriage.
(2) Revisional power cannot be equated with power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction.

Headnote:
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Domestic violence – Application for right to reside in rented accommodation and for grant of interim maintenance – DV Act has been enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in society – DV Act has been enacted also to provide an effective protection of rights of women guaranteed under Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within family – 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 relationship in nature of marriage. (Paras 7 and 8)
(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Domestic violence – Application for right to reside in rented accommodation and for grant of interim maintenance – Material placed on record shows that petitioner had entered into marriage agreement in year 2012 wherein it is stated that both parties intend to marry each other – Agreement shows that petitioner undertook to discharge all liabilities/obligations towards respondent and similarly respondent undertook to discharge all liabilities/obligations towards petitioner – Affidavit has been signed by both parties – There are photographs of petitioner and respondent which gives an impression that parties were living together as husband and wife and have married each other – School records of child have been filed wherein petitioner has been shown as father of child – Parties are majors, they have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time – Respondent has already taken divorce from her husband – Since case is only at an interim stage this Court is not inclined to interfere with direction of courts below awarding interim maintenance to respondent towards maintenance of child and also towards rent/accommodation – In case Metropolitan Magistrate, after evidence is led, comes to a conclusion that respondent was not entitled to protection of DV Act then adequate safeguards must be made to ensure that respondent returns amount received by her as interim maintenance in terms of order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate back to petitioner with interest. (Paras 8, 12, 15 and 17)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397/401 – Revision – Scope and ambit – Jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice – But said revisional power cannot be equated with power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction – Ordinarily, it would not be appropriate for High Court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when evidence has already been appreciated by Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to notice of High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. (Para 16)
Result: Petitions dismissed with observations.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.—Crl.M.C. 264/2021 is directed against the order dated 14.01.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 110/2020 and Crl.M.C. 420/2021 is directed against the order dated 14.01.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 171/2020. Both the petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petitions are as under:

(a) The respondent herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the DV Act”) before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, stating inter alia that she was married when she met the petitioner herein in the year 2009. She got married to him in the year 2014 after obtaining a divorce from her husband. It is stated that the applicant/respondent herein has a son namely, Master Jatin, aged 13 years, from her previous marriage. The child is presently studying in Shadley Public School, Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner herein is running a business of motor-parts from his shop. It is also stated that the petitioner herein has other shops which he has given on rent and he earns about Rs.10 lakhs per month from his business. It is stated that the petitioner herein had not disclosed his marital status to the applicant/respondent herein when they both met so as to induce the respondent to marry him. It is further stated that the petitioner herein executed a Marriage Agreement to show his genuineness and responsibility towards the applicant/respondent herein and her child. It is stated that in the agreement it was mentioned that the applicant/respondent herein was married and has a son from her previous marriage. It is stated that later the petitioner herein told the respondent that his wife is on dialyses and would not survive long and therefore he is looking for a life partner and that he is going to marry the applicant/respondent herein. It is stated that the applicant/respondent herein took divorce from her husband and got married to the petitioner herein on 21.11.2014. It is stated that another Agreement-cum-Marriage Deed was entered into between the petitioner herein and the applicant/respondent herein on 22.11.2014. It is stated that the petitioner herein had arranged a rental accommodation and both of them were living as husband and wife. It is further mentioned that the name of the petitioner herein is shown as the father of the child of the applicant/respondent herein in the school records. It is also stated that in the bank accounts of the respondent herein, the petitioner is shown as a nominee. It is stated that differences arose between the parties and the applicant/respondent was subjected to physical and mental abuse by the petitioner herein. It is stated that the applicant/respondent herein filed an FIR against the petitioner herein. The applicant/respondent herein therefore prayed for an order restraining the petitioner herein from evicting the applicant/respondent herein from the rented accommodation. An application for grant of interim maintenance has also been filed by the respondent herein.

(b) Summons were issued to the petitioner herein. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 31.07.2020 restrained the petitioner herein from dispossessing the applicant/respondent herein from the property bearing House No.435, Indra Vihar, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. An application for the rectification of the said order was filed stating that the address in the order was not correct.

(c) The petitioner herein prayed for recall of summons and dismissal of the application filed by the respondent herein contending that the respondent herein is not entitled to any relief under the DV Act because the respondent herein is not an aggrieved person inasmuch as the petitioner and the respondent had never been in a domestic relationship