Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20431
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
CHANDRA BABU – Appellant
Versus
VIDYA PUSHPAN – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 14/2023
JOHNSON GOMEZ, S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA), SANJAY JOHNSON, JOHN GOMEZ, ARUN JOHNY, DEEBU R., RESMI NANDANAN, P.SUJITH KUMAR, SMT.SEENA C.
A valid domestic relationship under the PWDV Act requires both parties to be unmarried; otherwise, the relationship cannot be recognized.
Headnote:
Domestic Relationship - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 2(f) - The court interpreted the definition of 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the PWDV Act, emphasizing the necessity of being unmarried for a valid relationship in the nature of marriage, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the 1st respondent underwent a marriage ceremony while their previous marriages were still subsisting. The courts below found a domestic relationship existed under the PWDV Act, which the petitioner challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were incorrect as they did not consider the requirement that parties must be unmarried to establish a domestic relationship under the PWDV Act.
Issues: Whether a domestic relationship existed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent despite both being married to others at the time of their marriage ceremony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a relationship to qualify as 'in the nature of marriage' under the PWDV Act, both parties must be unmarried, which was not the case here.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, and M.C.No.78 of 2013 is dismissed.
The definition of ‘domestic relationship’ in Section 2 (f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) crops up for interpretation yet again in this case.
2.At the time when they underwent a marriage ceremony, the first marriage of both the petitioner and the 1st respondent was subsisting. The trial court as well as the appellate court considered the question in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755] and held that dehors their first marriage, there existed a domestic relationship.
Various reliefs were granted accordingly. The petitioner challenges the said concurrent finding in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
3. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sasthamcotta initially as per its order dated 06.04.2018 allowed M.C.No.78 of 2013, which was filed by the 1st respondent. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The matter was carried to this Court in revision by filing Crl.Revision Petition No.937 of 2019. This Court as per the order dated 21.10.2020 allowed that revision petition and remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate for a fresh consideration in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Indra Sarma (supra). In obedience to the said direction, the learned Magistrate considered the matter afresh and allowed M.C.No.78 of 2013 as per the order dated 22.02.2021 granting most of the reliefs. The appellate court followed the suit and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner as per the judgment dated 05.11.2022.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Evidence shows, a ceremony of marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent took place on 23.08.2011 at Varkala Sivagiri Sarada Matt. Both of them had earlier married and their spouses alive. Their marriages were not dissolved on 23.08.2011. The marriage of the petitioner was dissolved on 23.09.2015. Ext.D2 is a certified copy of the order dissolving the marriage. Marriage of the 1st respondent was dissolved on 17.07.2012. Ext.P7 is the certified copy of the order dissolving her marriage. On 23.08.2011 earlier marriages of the petitioner and the 1st respondent were subsisting. Therefore the question is whether, on account of the marriage ceremony on 23.08.2011 and subsequent cohabitation for a considerable period by the petitioner and the 1st respondent, which the petitioner does not admit there existed a domestic relationship answering to the definition contained in Section 2 (f) of the PWDV Act.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance essentially on Velusamy D. v. D.Patchaiammal [(2010) 10 SCC 469] and Indra Sarma [2013) 15 SCC 755] in order to contend that the relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent did not create a domestic relationship. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, would submit that all the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Indra Sarma (supra) are satisfied in this case, and therefore, the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below that the petitioner and the 1st respondent were in a domestic relationship is not liable to be interfered with.
7. Section 2 (f) of the PWDV Act is extracted below: “2(f) domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”
8. In Indra Sarma (supra) a few guidelines were issued with a caveat that those were not exhaustive to decide existence or not of a domestic relationship. The observations contained in paragraph No.55 are extracted below:
- “55. We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some gui
