1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
2. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 35/2009, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The appeal challenging the order made by J.M.F.C., Bhoom in Criminal Mis. Application No. 141/2008 filed under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred as the "Act" for short] is allowed by the Sessions Court. The protection order and maintenance order made by J.M.F.C. in favour of the petitioner are set aside by Sessions Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the second wife of respondent. She cohabited with respondent for 4-5 years after the marriage in his house, where he was living with first wife. It is her case that the respondent and his first wife drove her out of the matrimonial house on 1.11.2007 after giving severe ill-treatment to her. It is her case that, respondent was asking her to bring money and gold ornaments from her parents and was compelling her to do hard labour work. It is her case that she was mentally and physically harassed by the respondent and his first wife and they were demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for purchasing the motorcycle.
4. It is the case of wife that she has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and the husband has refused and neglected to maintain her. It is her case that she is living in a rented house. She had claimed relief like protection order, allowance for making payment of rent and compensation amount. It is her case that the husband is in a position to give such allowance as he owns 20 Acres of agricultural land and as he is in service.
5. The respondent has denied the relationship. He has denied that there was cohabitation with the petitioner. He has admitted that he is in service. It is the case of respondent that due to the contention of the petitioner that she is the second wife, the proceeding under section 12 of the Act is not tenable.
6. Before J.M.F.C. the petitioner examined herself, her father, one priest of marriage and one Chagan to give evidence on the factum of marriage. She has examined one Dr. Yadav to show that the respondent had taken her to the dispensary of this lady doctor for medical check up and there was the cohabitation between her and the respondent.
7. The respondent did not examine himself to give evidence in rebuttal. No evidence at all is given in defence by the present respondent. The tenor of cross examination of the witnesses shows that the respondent has no issue from first wife. The tenor shows that the petitioner is a relative of respondent and defence is taken that the petitioner and her father were insisting the respondent to perform marriage with the petitioner as the respondent had no issue from first wife. From the evidence given, it can be said that the petitioner also did not conceive, though there was cohabitation of 4-5 years.
8. The evidence of Dr. Yadav, Gynecologist, examined by the petitioner shows that the respondent had taken the petitioner to this lady doctor for medical check up. The circumstance that the respondent is not having any issue from the first wife needs to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence given against him. There was no reason for the lady doctor to create false record of case papers or to give false evidence in favour of the present petitioner. The proceeding under section 12 of the Act needs to be decided in summary manner and so the Court should look for the nature and extent of proof accordingly.
9. The petitioner has given evidence that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 20.11.1999. She has deposed that there was the total cohabitation of around 6 years and during last 2 years of the cohabitation, ill-treatment was given to her. She has deposed that she cohabited with the respondent in the same house, where the first wife of the respondent was living. She has given evidence that the respondent was asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents as he wanted to purchase a motorcycle. She has deposed that the respondent was compelling her to do hard work in the field and he was harassing her mentally also. She has given evidence that as the demand of money was not met with, ill-treatment was given to her and so she is living separate in a rented room. The evidence is given about filing of a case for offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code also.
10. Masu, father of petitioner, has given evidence that the respondent married with the petitioner as he had no issue from the first wife. He has given evidence that the first wife of respondent had given consent for this second marriage of the respondent and all rites and customs were followed and ceremonies were performed at the time of marriage. He has deposed that ill-treatment was started to the petitioner as she also did not conceive after many years of the marriage. He has given evidence that the respondent then started making demand of money and then respondent deserted petitioner.
11. Chagan Andhare is resident of village of respondent. He has given evidence on marriage between petitioner and respondent and also on the cohabitation. Nothing is brought on the record to show that he is interested witness or he has some enmity against the respondent.
12. Dilip Kulkarni, the priest, who solemnized the marriage, has given evidence on the ceremonies of the marriage. He has given evidence that all the rites and ceremonies were performed. He is from the village of father of petitioner, but only due to this circumstance, he cannot be disbelieved. The evidence shows that it was known to him that it was the second marriage of respondent.
13. The evidence of Dr. Yadav is more specific and it shows that on 28.6.2001 the respondent and the petitioner had come to her dispensary. In her evidence, the prescription and record of treatment is proved as Exhs. 32 and 33. This record shows that not only the petitioner, but the respondent was also examined. She is a gynecologist and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, her evidence needs to be given due weight. All this evidence has created a probability that the respondent married with the petitioner as he was not having issue from the first wife, but the petitioner did not conceive and so the dispute started. This Court holds that there is sufficient evidence on the factum of marriage and also on the cohabitation between the parties. The denial of the relationship by the husband and the absence of evidence in rebuttal is sufficient to infer that it is a case of domestic violence. It does not look probable that only to get some amount from the respondent, false allegations are made by the petitioner, when respondent was already related with her from prior to the date of marriage.
14. In the cross examination of the petitioner, it is brought on the record that grandmother of petitioner is a sister of respondent. In cross examination of Masu, father of petitioner, it is brought on the record that there is no practice of marriage between descendants of the same person in his community. However, it needs to be kept in mind that in this region there is a practice of marriage of a person with a relative from maternal side. This Court holds that it was necessary to bring specific admission or evidence on record to show that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is prohibited due to customs of the community. So not much weight can be given to this isolated admission atleast for the present matter.
15. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the J.M.F.C. held that the relationship as required under section 2 (f) of the Act is proved. As against this decision, the Sessions Court has relied on the case reported as AIR 2011 SC 479 [D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal]. The Sessions Court has relied on the observations made by the Apex Court at para No. 33, which are as under :-
"33. In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married:-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
(see `Common Law Marriage' in Wikipedia on Google)
In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a `shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a `domestic relationship'."
16. This Court has gone through the facts of the aforesaid reported case. The petition was filed under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and there was the contention of marriage in the year 1986. The husband had taken defence that he had already married with other lady and his marriage had taken place in the year 1980. It is observed by the Apex Court that behind the back of the first wife Lakshmi, the Court ought not to have held that there was no marriage between Lakshmi and the respondent of the proceeding. By making such observation, the matter was remanded back. The Apex Court directed the Court to give finding on points like:-
(i) Whether Lakshmi had married with applicant, the man involved in the proceeding ?
(ii) Whether the petitioner of 125 proceeding had married with the same person and
(iii) Whether the petitioner had lived with this man in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage?
This case was decided by the Apex Court on 21.10.2010.
17. For present petitioner, wife, reliance was placed on the case reported as 2011 CRI.L.J. 1996 Supreme Court [Chanmuniya Vs. virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr.]. This was again a proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C. In view of the provision of the Act and change in social attitude and values, the Supreme Court has expressed a view that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term 'wife' used in section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is observed that the term 'wife' need to include even those cases where a man and a woman have been living together as husband and wife for reasonably long period of time and strict proof of marriage should not be pre-condition for granting maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. In view of the previous conflicting decisions of Supreme Court on the interpretation of term 'wife' used in section 125 of Cr.P.C., in this case, the Apex Court made request to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to refer few points to larger bench for interpretation of the provision of section 125 of Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of the Act. At paragraph No. 45, there are the points which are referred to larger bench.
"1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?
2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?"
18. At paragraph Nos. 41 and 42 in the case cited supra following observations are made by the Apex Court.
"41. Most significantly, the Act gives a very wide interpretation to the term 'domestic relationship' as to take it outside the confines of a marital relationship, and even includes live-in relationship in the nature of marriage within the definition of 'domestic relationship' under Section 2 (f) of the Act.
42. Therefore, women in live-in relationships are also entitled to all the reliefs given in the said Act."
This case was decided by the Apex Court on 7.10.2010, prior to the decision given in D. Velusamy's case cited supra. In D. Velusamy's case, the previously decided case of Chanmuniyawas not shown to the Apex Court probably as the Chanmuniya'scase was decided just 15 days prior to the decision of D. Velusamy's case. The case of D. Velusamy's case was decided by other bench of the Apex Court.
19. If the observations made by the Apex Court in the two cases cited supra are considered, it can be said that in both cases (different benches), the Court was considering the effects of provisions of the Act on the right of maintenance, which can be claimed by a lady under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It can also be said that the Apex Court was considering the proceeding filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and those cases were not filed under the provisions of the Act. The case in which reference is made to the larger Bench shows that the Apex Court has formed an opinion that the provisions of section 125 of Cr.P.C. also need to be looked into from a different angle now.
20. Section 26 of the Act shows that the reliefs under sections 18 to 22 of the Act can be claimed in 'any legal proceeding' pending before the Civil or Criminal Court. It can be said that in view of this liberty given to the parties, in a proceeding filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., application can be filed under section 12 of the Act and relief of maintenance can be claimed under the Act. Even if the interpretation of term 'wife' is not changed for the purpose of section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the claimant in a proceeding filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. fails to establish that she is 'wife' as required for section 125 of Cr.P.C., she can establish that she falls under the definition of 'domestic relationship' given in section 2 (f) of the Act. In that case, if there is the application filed under section 12 of the Act, she can get the relief of maintenance in view of the provisions of the Act. Thus, at present, in a case like present one, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish her relationship with the respondent as defined in section 2 (f) of the Act. The Sessions Court has picked up some observations made by the Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy for setting aside the order made by the J.M.F.C. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Sessions Court has committed error in doing so.
21. The provisions of section 12 (4) and 12 (5) of the Act show that the proceeding is expected to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and endeavour of Magistrate should be to see that such proceeding is disposed of within 60 days from the date of first hearing. The provision of section 28 of the Act shows that the proceeding for the reliefs under the Act shall be governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C., but section 28 (2) of the Act shows that wide powers are given to Magistrate to lay down its own procedure for disposal of the proceeding filed under section 12 and 23 (2) of the Act. These provisions show that the Magistrate is expected to deal with the proceedings filed under section 12 and 23 of the Act in a summary manner, so that the proceeding is disposed of expeditiously. Considering the purpose behind the Act, which is discussed in the case of Chanmuniyacited supra, the detail examination of rival cases like Civil Court is not expected.
22. For getting the reliefs under sections 18 to 22 of the Act, the application is required to be moved under section 12 of the Act. Such proceeding can be filed by 'aggrieved person'. The definition of the term 'aggrieved person' is given in section 2 (a) of the Act and it is as under:-
"(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent; "
The term 'domestic relationship' is defined in section 2 (f) of the Act and it is as under:-
"(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;"
In the definition of 'domestic relationship' it is provided that relationship by marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage need to be proved. Thus, it can be said that the factum of marriage is not expected to be proved for getting reliefs and the claimant may lead evidence only on the relationship in the nature of marriage. In view of the procedure, which the Magistrate is expected to follow, this Court holds that such relationship can be proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.
23. Sections 2 (a), 3 and 12 of the Act show that for getting the reliefs, the person like the present petitioner is required to prove that she had lived together with the respondent in a 'shared household'. Such evidence is given by petitioner in this case and there is nothing in rebuttal. When the respondent like the husband from the present case denies the relationship itself, it can be used as one of the circumstances against him for the proof of 'domestic violence' as defined in section 3 of the Act. This Court has no hesitation to hold that in the present case, there is evidence on the factum of marriage and there is evidence on cohabitation and so the wife has proved that she falls under section 2 (f) of the Act. Thus, the J.M.F.C. had not committed any error in granting the relief of maintenance allowance to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the observations made in the case of D. Velusamy cited supra cannot come in the way of the petitioner to get relief of maintenance under the Act. No argument was advanced on the quantum of allowance in this proceeding. So, the order.
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 35/2009 delivered by the Sessions Court, Osmanabad is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The judgment and order of J.M.F.C. Bhoom in Criminal Misc. Application No. 141/2008 is hereby restored.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.