Bombay High Court
Namdev Khannappa Sisal And Ors vs Balabai @ Surekha Namdev Sisal And Anr on 31 January, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:4871
sa_mandawgad 11crirevn273-22+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2022
WITH
CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2008 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2022
Namdev Khannappa Sisal and Ors. ... Applicants.
Versus
Balabai @ Surekha Namdev Sisal and Anr. ... Respondents.
------
Mr. Anand S. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
------
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : JANUARY 31, 2024
P. C.:
1. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked
to challenge the judgment passed by the Sessions Court on 3 rd
March, 2022, rejecting the Appeal and confirming the findings of
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
2. The facts of the case are that the Application under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (for short, "DV Act") was filed by the Respondent No.1-
wife under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 seeking protection
11crirevn273-22+
orders, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, restraining orders and the
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The Application came to be
resisted by the Revision-Applicant claiming that the Respondent
No.1 was not his wife and as such, there is no question of any act
of domestic violence. It was contended that the Respondent No.1
has no relationship with the Revision-Applicant and as such, she is
not entitled to compensation or maintenance.
3. The parties went to trial. The trial Court after considering
the evidence which has brought on record partly allowed the
Application and passed the protection order, order of monthly
maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and residence order directing the
Revision-Applicant to handover two rooms for the purpose of
residence of the Applicant-wife and granted compensation of
Rs.50,000/-. The Appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2021
which came to be dismissed.
4. Heard Mr. A.S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
Revision-Applicants and Mr. N.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent No.1.
5. Mr. A.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for Revision-
11crirevn273-22+
Applicant would submit that the Respondent no.1-wife has failed
to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the Revision-Applicant.
He has taken this Court to the findings of the Trial Court and
would submit that negative burden has been placed upon the
Revision-Applicant to prove that no act of domestic violence has
been committed by the Revision-Applicant. He submits that he
is married to another lady and not to the Respondent no.1.
Pointing out the cross-examination, he submits that the
Respondent No.1 has admitted that apart from the wedding
invitation card as well as the statement given to the police station,
there are no documents to prove the marriage between the
Revision-Applicant and the Respondent no.1. He submits that once
there is failure to prove that the Respondent No.1 is a legally
wedded wife of the Revision-Applicant, no question of grant of any
relief arises.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.1 has supported the impugned order. He submits that there are
concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court and
in revision jurisdiction the same ought not to be interfered with.
11crirevn273-22+
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. The Application filed by the Respondent No.1-wife under
the provisions of DV Act pleads that on 24th August, 2008, the
marriage of the Revision-Applicant and the Respondent No.1 was
solemnized. It is pleaded that the Respondent no.1's father had
given certain gold ornaments and had borne 50% of the wedding
expenses by giving Rs.25,000/- in cash. It is pleaded that
subsequently, the Revision-Applicant started harassing the
Respondent No.1 and demanded sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is pleaded
that in the year 2009, when the Respondent No.1's father came to
the matrimonial house to take the Respondent No.1 to the parental
home for Ganpati festival, the Revision-Applicant had a quarrel
with the Respondent no.1's father and thereafter, forcibly removed
the gold chain wore by the Respondent No.1 and then sent her to
the parental house. It is pleaded that due to the constant demand
of dowry, the Respondent No.1's sister, her brother-in-law, and her
cousin sister-Shobha bought Rs.20,000/- and gave the same to the
Revision-Applicant No.1 and his brother.
9. It is further pleaded that in January, 2010, the
11crirevn273-22+
Respondent No.1 was driven out of the matrimonial house and due
to the assault, she was forced to take medical treatment. It is
pleaded that later on, the Respondent No.1 came to know that on
31st July, 2010, the Revision-Applicant No.1 has married one
Laxmibai and police complaint was lodged. It is pleaded that the
Respondent No.1 does not have any source of income, whereas the
Revision-Applicant is having landed property of about two acres
and house property having 19 rooms which are given on rent. It is
pleaded that the Revision-Applicant earns an income of
Rs.2,00,000/- from agricultural lands and is also working in
Monograph Company and earning monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-.
10. In support of her submissions, she has produced
voluminous documentary records. As regards the property, she has
produced the 7/12 extract as well as assessment extract of
Grampanchayat. In support of the contention that she is the legally
wedded wife of the Revision-Applicant, she has examined one
Kammanna Borgave and Arti Mahadeo Nandrekar and has also
produced the statement given by the Revision-Applicant to the
police station and also copy of the Aadhar Card. She has also
11crirevn273-22+
produced the certified copy of the marriage invitation card which
was produced in Regular Civil Suit No.687 of 2010 and other
documents.
11. The trial Court considered that the Revision-Applicant
No.1 has admitted in his statement to the police station that he is
married to the Respondent No.1. The trial Court also considered
that the witness examined by the Respondent No.1 has deposed
that they were present for the wedding ceremony. In the cross-
examination it appears that the witness admitted that he does not
remember the date of marriage. Even if, the witness does not
recollect the date of marriage, it needs to be noted that there is no
admission elicited in the cross-examination which would support
the case of the Revision-Applicant. It also needs to be noted that
PW-2 is an illiterate person and as such, not much importance can
be given to his deposition in the cross-examination, that he does
not recollect the date of the marriage.
12. Considering the documentary as well as oral evidence
brought on record, the Court has rightly appreciated the evidence.
No infirmity can be found in the finding of the trial Court that the
11crirevn273-22+
Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the Revision-
Applicant.
13. Apart from that, the definition of 'domestic relationship'
found in Section 2(f) of the DV Act, would indicate that it means a
relationship between two persons, who are related even through a
relationship in the nature of marriage. Considering the wide
definition of 'domestic relationship', it cannot be said that the
provisions of the D.V. Act are inapplicable. There is no material
produced before this Court to show that any evidence has been
adduced to indicate that the Respondent No.1 was not residing
with the Revision-Applicant after the marriage. As such, the trial
Court and the Appellate Court has rightly held that the provisions
of the D.V. Act are applicable.
14. As regards the act of domestic violence, the pleadings in
the Application would show that the monetary demand was made
and as such, the same falls within the definition of 'Domestic
Violence' as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act. The trial Court
has held that the refusal of the relationship between the parties
has resulted in an emotional abuse of the Respondent No.1, which
11crirevn273-22+
falls within the definition of 'domestic violence'. The trial Court
has also considered the act of second marriage of the Revision-
Applicant to be an act of 'domestic violence'. I find no reason to
take a different view of the matter.
15. Apart from the said submission, no other submission has
been advanced as regards the quantum of the maintenance or the
residence relief which has been granted by the Court. The thrust
of the submission was, there was no relationship between the
parties which the oral as well as documentary evidence prove
otherwise.
16. Having regard to the discussion above, the concurrent
findings of the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality so as
to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
Revision Application is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. In
view of the dismissal of the Revision Application, Interim
Application does not survive and stands disposed of.
( Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/02/2024 16:32:15
