IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

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 Section 12 of the Act for not being maintainable. Being aggrieved of, the opposite parties preferred the appeal under Section 29 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 court of first instance but as stated before, the proceeding was disposed of and dismissed at the threshold on a preliminary objection received from the petitioners later unsettled by the learned court below, while dealing with the appeal.

4. Perused a copy of the application under Section 12 of the Act filed before the learned SDJM, Rairangpur as at Annexure-1. The show cause received from petitioner No.1 in that proceeding is at Annexure-2 series and it is gone throu