IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

1.

CRR 134 of 2018 Harbindar Kumar Sharma Vs.

Smt. Baby Kaur Sharma & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Verma, Mr. Atulya Sinha Verma, Ms. Brihanwita Debnath, Ms. Aparna Sarkar, Mr. Suraj Naskar For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sumanta Ganguly, Ld. Amicus Curiae Hearing Concluded on : 04th July, 2025 Judgment on : 18th July, 2025 Uday Kumar, J.:-

1. This Revisional Application, CRR No. 134 of 2018, has been preferred by Harbindar Kumar Sharma (the petitioner/husband), for setting aside of the interim order of maintenance and protection granted to Smt. Baby Kaur Sharma (the opposite party/wife) and her minor daughter under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the DV Act). This order was passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court at Calcutta, in Misc. Case No. 25 of 2017, on December 16, 2017, following an application by the opposite party/wife. The petitioner/husband also sought quashing of the entire proceedings of domestic violence initiated against him, raising fundamental questions about the very existence of a "domestic relationship" between the parties, a prerequisite for the Act's applicability.

2. The dispute originated from the opposite party/wife's assertion that she married the petitioner/husband on March 5, 2006, under Hindu rites, and that their minor daughter, Isha Sharma, was born on November 10, 2007. She alleged that following their daughter's birth, she suffered severe physical and mental torture from the petitioner/husband and his family due to unfulfilled dowry demands. This, she claims, led to her forceful expulsion from the matrimonial home on October 20, 2015, allegedly without her 'Stridhan'. The opposite party/wife further contended that she is currently unemployed and dependant on her parents, while the petitioner/husband, who purportedly owns a transport company, earns a substantial monthly income of Rs. 1 lakh but has failed to provide for their maintenance. A related police complaint (Cossipore P.S. Case No. 227 of 2015 under Sections 498A/506/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the DP Act) was also lodged. Based on these allegations, she sought various reliefs under the DV Act, including crucial interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month, accommodation, and litigation costs under Section 23 of the DV Act. She filed an application before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II at Calcutta, which was subsequently transferred to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court at Calcutta.

3. The petitioner/husband and his family appeared in the DV Act case on October 16, 2017. They vehemently denied the marriage with the opposite party/wife, the paternity of the child, and all other allegations by filing a written objection. They asserted that all allegations were false, malicious, and intended to extort money and coerce the petitioner/husband into marriage. Their pivotal contention in their objection was that on March 5, 2006, the purported date of marriage, the opposite party/wife was already the legally married wife of one Sri Sanjoy Arora, rendering any subsequent marriage void. To buttress this claim, they presented still photographs allegedly depicting the opposite party/wife with Sri Sanjoy Arora in matrimonial attire, and crucially, a certified copy of the divorce decree between the opposite party/wife and Sri Sanjoy Arora, obtained subsequent to the initial complaint. On November 18, 2017, the opposite party/wife filed a specific application for interim reliefs under Section 23 of the DV Act, seeking Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance, along with accommodation or rent, and litigation costs. The petitioner/husband filed his counter-objection to this interim application on December 12, 2017, reaffirming his denial of the marriage and the allegations. He argued that the entire DV Act proceeding was a malicious a