- Bench: Mangesh S. Patil(Bombay HC)
- Applicant :Reshma Begum
- Respondents:
- (R1) The State of Maharashtra
- (R2) GajanfarKazi
- Citation: 2018 SCC OnLineBom 1827
Issue:
What is the interpretation of ‘domestic relationship’ under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
Facts:
- The applicant who belongs to Jain Hindu community claims to have customarily divorced Shantaram Mahadu Ughade on 15.10.2011, with whom she had begotten a child. Later, she developed an affair with R2, a married Islam having children. On 21.07.2012, the couple entered into a marital tie in presence of a Kazi and the applicant gave birth to their child on 29.04.2013. Eventually, they separated due to disputes between them.
- A criminal miscallenous application u/s 12 of DV Act was filed by the applicant in First Class Magistrate Court. In response, R2 claimed enduring nature of both of their earlier marriages and denied the legal possibility of a marriage, as well as any kind of relations with the applicant. When reliefs were granted to the applicant, R2 filed a criminal appeal with the Addl. Sessions Court, which concluded that they were not in a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, as they were already married to other parties, violating the pre-requisite stated under Veluswamy v.Patchaiammal. Hence, this revision.
Applicant’s contentions:
- A notarized deed dated 15.11.2011 exists in proof of her divorce with Shantaram.
- Muslim personal law allows R2 to solemnize a second marriage while his first marriage persists.
- Evidenceof marriage produced in the form of Kazi’s testimony, Nikahnama, birth certificate of their child, in which they have held themselves out as husband and wife.
Final Decision and Principles established:
An analysis of SC judgments in Veluswamy case [AIR 2011 SC 479] and IndraSarma case [AIR 2014 SC 309] reveals that not all live-in relationships are to be deemed as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” u/s 2(f) of the DV Act. The wider interpretation of the term is aimed at welfare of unmarried women in live-in relationships who are left estranged or abused; but not at promoting adulterous relationships. The benefits provided under the Act are to be interpreted harmoniously, not violating penal provisions of adultery. Since, the applicant admitted the existence of her first marriage, negating the possibility of a legal marriage between the two contesting parties, revision was dismissed stating no “domestic relationship” subsists between them.
