Kerala High Court
Siby vs Sophi on 15 July, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019
..1..
2025:KER:52230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 30 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2018 IN Crl.A NO.16 OF 2018
OF SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED
30.10.2017 IN MC NO.76 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS - I, DEVIKULAM
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/
RESPONDENTS:
1 SIBY,
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O GEORGE,
MANJUMMELKUDI HOUSE, MANJAKKUZHI,
RAJAKUMARY P.O.,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2 MARIYAKUTTY
W/O GEORGE, MANJUMMELKUDI HOUSE,
MANJAKKUZHI, RAJAKUMARY P.O.,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
3 SINDHU
W/O JOSEPH,
KANDAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
MANJAKKUZHI, RAJAKUMARY P.O,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019
..2..
2025:KER:52230
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/
PETITIONER & STATE:
1 SOPHI
W/O SIBY, UPPUMACKAL HOUSE,
DEVIKULAM KARA, DEVIKULAM P.O.,
KDH VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685585.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
SMT.SRUTHY N. BHAT
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019
..3..
2025:KER:52230
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha (for short, the appellate court) in Crl.A.No.16/2018 dated 7.12.2018 as well as the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam (for short, the trial court) in M.C.No.76/2008 dated 30.10.2017.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV Act) against the petitioners seeking residential order and maintenance as MC No.76/2008. The case of the 1 st respondent in the maintenance case is that she is the wife of the 1 st petitioner. However, she has admitted that she married the 1 st petitioner when the marriage of the 1 st petitioner with another lady was subsisting. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the mother and sister of the 1st petitioner. Admittedly, two children were born in Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019 ..4..
2025:KER:52230 the relationship between the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent. The 1st respondent sought maintenance for herself and her children. She also sought for a residential order. The 1 st petitioner filed objection to the petition, for himself and for and on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The 1st petitioner has denied the marriage or relation in the form of marriage with the 1st respondent. In short, the domestic relationship between them was specifically denied. However, the 1 st petitioner has admitted the paternity of the two children.
3. Before the trial court, the 1st respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the petitioners, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. After trial, the trial court entered into a finding that the 1st respondent has the status of the wife of the 1st petitioner and directed the 1st petitioner to provide maintenance at the rate of ₹3,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and ₹2,000/- each per month to Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019 ..5..
2025:KER:52230 the children. The petitioners were also restrained from causing any obstruction to the 1st respondent and children to reside in the shared household belonging to the father of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners challenged the order of the trial court before the appellate court in Crl.A.No.16/2018. The appellate court confirmed the order of the trial court with respect to the maintenance and modified the residential order, directing the 1st petitioner to provide alternative accommodation on rent to the 1st respondent and her two daughters and directed to pay ₹3,000/- per month for rent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he confines his challenge in this revision petition only to the maintenance awarded to the 1st respondent. According to the learned counsel, since there is no marriage or domestic relationship in the nature of a marriage, the petition under Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019 ..6..
2025:KER:52230 Section 12 of the DV Act is not maintainable against the 1 st petitioner. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. Sarma [2013 (4) KLT 763 (SC)]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that there is evidence to show that the 1st respondent and the 1st petitioner have been living together as husband and wife for a long period and hence, the domestic relationship has been established.
6. In the petition, the 1st respondent has averred that she and the 1st petitioner got married on 9.6.2005 at Devikulam Sub Registrar office in the presence of witnesses. Admittedly, there is no ceremonial or customary marriage in accordance with the personal law governing the parties. In the petition, the 1st respondent has admitted that while she contracted the registered marriage with the 1 st petitioner as stated above, the 1st petitioner was already married. It is Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019 ..7..
2025:KER:52230 specifically admitted that the 1st petitioner had married a native of Silent Valley namely Giji and since that marriage was not legally dissolved, her marriage with the 1 st petitioner was not performed in accordance with law. The same averment has been reiterated by the 1st respondent in her chief affidavit. Thus, it is an admitted fact that there is no legal marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent. However, it has come out in evidence that they have been living together since 2005 and two children were born out of the said relationship. The crucial question is whether that relationship would amount to the 'relationship in the form of marriage' to attract the definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The Supreme Court in Indra Sarma (supra) has explained the distinction between a relationship in the nature of marriage and the marital relationship. It was held that all live-in relationships are not relationship in the nature of marriage. It was further Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019 ..8..
2025:KER:52230 held that relationship which are polygamous, bigamous and adulterous cannot be said to be relationship in the nature of marriage and that a concubine cannot maintain a relationship in the nature of marriage. It was also held that a concubine cannot maintain a relationship in the nature of marriage because such a relationship will not have exclusivity and will not be monogamous in character and DV Act does not take care of such relationship. Ultimately, it was found that if one person enters into a relationship with another with the knowledge that the other one is married, the said relationship will not amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage. Here also, admittedly, the 1st respondent had entered into a relationship with the 1st petitioner with the knowledge that the 1st petitioner was already married. Therefore, their relationship cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage. Hence, there is no domestic relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent. Accordingly, Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 30 of 2019 ..9..
2025:KER:52230 the maintenance awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court to the 1st respondent alone is hereby set aside.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent that the 1st petitioner has failed to pay maintenance awarded to the children. The 1st petitioner is directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance, if any, due to the minor within three months from today.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp/APA