“Domestic relationship between them did exist”: P&H HC while upholding woman’s right to file domestic violence complaint against her partner in relationship which was in nature of marriage

Read Order: Ashok Kumar v. Rekha Rani 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 18,  2022: While dealing with a review petition in which the petitioner impugned the concurrent findings recorded by the lower Court in allowing respondent’s petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has held that even if the marriage of the parties was not proved, there couldnot be any doubt that the parties were living together in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage.

The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul further said, “Hence, the ‘domestic relationship’ between them did exist and the respondent being an aggrieved person was fully competent to file a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act.”

In the case at hand, the respondent’s complaint was filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against the petitioner (Ashok Kumar), and was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the first appellate court. Hence, the instant review petition was filed by the petitioner impugning the said order of dismissal of his appeal. 

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondent failed to prove her marriage with the petitioner and that the domestic relationship between both parties was not established. Hence, it was argued that the complaint under section 12 of the DV Act was not maintainable and the petitioner was not liable to maintain the respondent. It was also contended that there was nothing on record to establish that the petitioner and the respondent lived together. 

The Court referred to the provisions of Section 2(f) of the DV Act to state that this provision undoubtedly made it clear that any relationship in the nature of marriage between two persons, who lived together in a shared household (as defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act) would fall within the ambit of ‘domestic relationship.’ Reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma wherein it was held that a live-in relationship between two persons would fall within the expression of “relationship” in the nature of marriage. 

The Court observed at the outset that the respondent proved her association with the petitioner by producing photographs and her daughter’s birth certificate which carried the petitioner’s name as the father of the child. The Court also noted that the respondents’ case was thoroughly corroborated by the other witnesses as well. Further, the Court observed that the petitioner and his family did not deny their relationship with the respondent, in the complaints that were made by the respondent to the Police. Rather, it was merely stated by the petitioner’s family that he (the petitioner) was disowned by them. 

“It is, thus, very evident that the petitioner for reasons but obvious i.e. to shirk his responsibility towards the petitioner and his daughter is now not only disputing his marriage but also the parentage of his child”, observed the Bench. 

Hence, the petition was dismissed by the High Court.