2026:BHC-NAG:1174 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.209/2024

1. Pravin Satyanarayan Battulwar, Age 24 yrs., Occ. Agriculture, 2. Satyanarayan Mallya Battulwar, Age 45 yrs., Occ. Agriculture, 3. Laxmibai Satyanarayan Batulwar, Age 40 yrs., Occ. Housewife, 4. Chayarani Pravin Battulwar, Age 26 yrs., Occ. Housewife, All R/o. Raygatta, Tah. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS

1. Meena Pravin Battulwar, Age 22 yrs., Occ. Housewife, 2. Shrinidhi d/o. Pravin Battulwar, Age 8 months, Occ. N.A.

All R/o. Matoshri Lokmangal Sanstha, Ghot, Tah. Chamorshi, Dist. Gadchiroli (Through respondent No.1)

...RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. A.R. Fule, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. J.A. Anthony, Advocate for respondents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : M. M. NERLIKAR, J .

DATE : 20.01.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents.

2. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the entire proceedings including impugned orders dated 08.09.2022 and 19.10.2023 in PWDVA No. 20/2022 filed by respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 (“D.V Act”) before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi.

3. The principal challenge is to the proceedings initiated by the present respondents under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no relationship in the nature of marriage between the parties. The FIR was lodged by the present respondent No.1 on 07.05.2022 alleging sexual abuse by the present petitioner No.1. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 26.06.2022. The petitioner No.4 got married with petitioner No.1 on 06.07.2022. He further submits that the couple never lived in a shared household and therefore the relationship cannot come within the purview of definition of Domestic Relationship. As the petitioner No.1 and respondents do not have any relationship, therefore even their relationship does not fall under the said definition of ‘Domestic Relationship and Relationship in the nature of marriage’. He invited my attention to the FIR which was registered, wherein the present respondent No.1 has made allegations against the present petitioner No.1 stating that at the relevant time, she was residing with her brother at Alapalli and at Aheri with her friend. Therefore, he submits that it cannot be said that they lived in a shared household. By relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal, 2010 DGLS(SC) 835, though the relationship in the nature of marriage is not defined, however the Supreme Court in the said judgment has carved out certain guidelines in order to interpret the ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’. The following guidelines has been laid down by the Apex Court to identify ‘relationship in the nature of marriage:-

a] The couple must hold themselves out to the society as being akin to spouses.

b] They must be of legal age to marry.

c] They must be otherwise qualified to enter into legal marriage including being unmarried.

d) They must have voluntarily co-habited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for significant period of time.”

My attention was invited to the first ingredient that is the couple must hold themselves out in society as being akin to spouses. He has mainly harped upon the fact that the parties have not portrayed themselves as spouses to the society and therefore the very first ingredient for establishing ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is not made out. He submits that merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not come under the purview of domestic relationship as was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of D. Velusamy (supra). The complaint is nothing but a revengeful