Bombay High Court
Anand S/O. Dinkar Vharkate And Others vs Madura Claimed W/O. Anand Vharkate on 15 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:11332
Cri-WP**-306-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 306 OF 2019
1] Anand s/o Dinkar Vharkate
Age: 35 years, Occu:- Labour,
R/o Say Gavhan, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
2] Dinkar s/o Vaman Vharkate
Age:- 65 years, Occu:- Agriculturist
R/o Say Gavhan, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
3] Hirabai w/o Dinkar Vharkate
Age:- 60 years, Occu:- Household,
R/o. Say Gavhan, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
4] Santosh s/o Dinkar Vharkate
Age:- 40 years, Occu:- Labour,
R/o Say Gavhan, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
5] Mira w/o Santosh Vharkate
Age:- 35 years, Occu:- Household,
R/o Say Gavhan, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Ahrangabad ... PETITIONERS
[ORIGINAL OPPONENTS]
VERSUS
Madhra claimed w/o Anand Vharkate
Age:-32 years, Occu:- Household,
R/o Nandiwali, Tq. Shirur Kasar,
Dist. Beed ...RESPONDENT
[ORIGINAL APPLICANT]
1 of 15
(( 2 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
....
Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. R. C. Brahmankar, h/f Mr. N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the
Respondent sole
....
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 15.04.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of
both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioners assailed the judgment and order
dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed in
Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2018, thereby affirmed the judgment and
order dated 14.02.2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Shirur Kasar in
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.106 of 2015.
3. The Petitioners are the original non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5
and the Respondent is the original Applicant in Miscellaneous
Criminal Application No.106 of 2015 filed under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short, D.V. Act).
For the sake of brevity, I would like to refer the parties to the present
2 of 15
(( 3 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
petition in their original capacity as Applicant/aggrieved party and
Petitioners/original non-applicants.
4. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of
both the sides, I have gone through the record.
5. The aggrieved party/applicant instituted Miscellaneous
Criminal Application No.106 of 2015 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act,
alleging that, on 14.12.2014, her marriage was solemnized with non-
applicant No.1 as per the customs and rites prevailing in their society.
The said marital tie is still in existence. Non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are
the family members of her husband, non-applicant No.1. After
marriage, she cohabited with her husband-non-applicant No. 1 in the
joint family. Initially, she was treated properly for two months.
Thereafter, the non-applicant No.1 husband demanded Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh) from her parents for purchase of Tractor and due
to non fulfillment of said illegal demand, she was left to suffer in
agony. So also, she was not allowed to visit the neighbours' house,
because the non-applicant No.1-husband deceived her and her
parents about his first marriage and its dissolution and got married
with her. In spite of said facts, she co-habited with non-applicant
No.1. On 26.02.2015, she visited her parental house and disclosed
3 of 15
(( 4 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
her parents about demand of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) by the
non-applicants. On 08.03.2015, her parents and relatives visited the
non-applicants and requested them to treat the applicant properly
and they also agreed to fulfill said demand in next year. Thereafter,
the non-applicants agreed to maintain the applicant, if Rs.2,00,000/-
paid to them.
6. On 17.07.2015, at about 06.00 p.m., the non-applicants
visited parental house of the applicant, at that time, the non-
applicants abused her parents and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and
threatened to give divorce to the applicant, if the demand is not
fulfilled. It is further alleged that Non-Applicant No. 2 stated that the
marriage of Non-Applicant No. 1 had earlier been performed, but the
parents of that bride did not pay the money. Therefore, Non-Applicant
No. 1's second marriage was performed with the applicant. If the
applicant's parents fail to pay the amount, Non-Applicant No. 1 would
perform another marriage. It is further alleged that non-applicant
No.2 manhandled the applicant's father and the non-applicant No.4
issued life threat. Thereafter on hearing commotion, neighbours came
and rescued them. On the next day, the applicant visited Shirur Police
Station, but no cognizance was taken by the Police. The Applicant
4 of 15
(( 5 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
further alleged that, the non-applicants raised domestic violence due
to non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry defined under Section 3
of the D.V. Act. Therefore, she prayed for monetary relief as described
in paragraph No.10 of the application.
7. After service of summons, the non-applicants appeared
and filed their reply at Exh. 16. The Non-applicants denied all
adverse allegations made against them. According to the non-
applicants, the applicant has filed false and vexatious complaint
under Section 12 of the D.V. Act without any basis. According to the
Non-applicants, the applicant is not wife of the non-applicant no. 1
and their marriage was never performed. There is no existence of
matrimonial relations between the applicant and non-applicant No.1
nor domestic relations between them. So also, they never raised
domestic violence against the applicant. The applicant is maternal
cousin sister of non-applicant No.5. On 04.11.2014, the applicant's
father, her paternal uncle Bhausaheb and cousin Subhash visited their
house and proposed the non-applicant no. 1 for marriage although
the fact of divorce of non-applicant's no. 1 was disclosed. On
09.11.2014, non-applicant Nos.1, 4 & 5 and their relative, namely,
Gokul Halnor went to Nandewali to see the applicant. Thereafter,
5 of 15
(( 6 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
non-applicant no. 1 agreed to marry with the applicant and on the
same day engagement ceremony was performed in haste. However,
date of marriage to be fixed after 2-3 months. On 18.11.2014, the
applicant informed non-applicant no. 1 over the phone that her
parents were arranging her marriage against her wishes. She was in a
love affair with another boy and desired to marry him; hence, she
requested non-applicant no. 1 to refuse the marriage proposal.
Although non-applicant no. 1 disclosed this fact to his family
members, the applicant's father compelled him to proceed with the
marriage. Non-applicant no. 1 further alleged that the applicant's
father threatened to kill him if he refused to marry the applicant.
8. He further claimed that he had firmly refused to marry
the applicant. Later, he came to know that the applicant and her
paramour were severely assaulted by her relatives. Moreover, the
applicant's relatives allegedly threatened the non-applicants with false
criminal cases and imprisonment. Despite this, non-applicant no. 1
remained firm in his decision. However, due to this annoyance, the
applicant has filed a false application, and therefore, he prays for its
rejection
6 of 15
(( 7 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
9. In order to prove marriage ceremony and cohabitation,
the applicant examined herself at Exh.6. The applicant examined AW-
2 Uttam at Exh.19 and her parental uncle Nivrutti AW-3 at Exh.20.
The non-applicant No.1 husband examined himself at Exh.24 and
another witness Shri Jitendra NAW-2 at Exh.25.
10. On 14.02.2018, the learned J.M.F.C., Shirur Kasar, passed
the judgment and order holding that, due to non fulfillment of
demand of Rs.2,00,000/-, the applicant was subjected domestic
violence and non-applicant No.1 concealed his first marriage and
deceived the applicant, in spite of said fact that, the applicant
cohabited with non-applicant no. 1 for two months and marital
relations between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 is in
existence. The applicant and non-applicant no. 1 lived together in a
shared house and they are in domestic relations. There is no reason to
disbelieve the applicant that on 26.02.2015, non-applicant No.1
raised demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing Tractor, and
therefore, the applicant lodged the complaint for the offence u/s 498-
A. The non-applicant no. 1 was not maintaining the applicant since
26.02.2015 and flatly denied marital tie with applicant, which
7 of 15
(( 8 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
constitute domestic violence against the applicant. Therefore,
considering the evidence available on record as well as earning
capacity, the learned Trial Court directed the non-applicant No.1 to
pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance from
the date of the application.
11. Being aggrieved by the said order, the non-applicants had
filed Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2018 under Section 29 of the D.V. Act.
On 11.01.2019, the learned Appellate Court passed the impugned
order holding that, the non-applicant No.1 husband disputed about
solemnization of marriage with the applicant wife. However,
evidence available on record proves that, the marriage between the
applicant and non-applicant No.1 solemnized on 14.12.2014 and
their marital relations still exist. Therefore, considering the evidence
available on record the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and
order dated 14.02.2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. in Misc.
Criminal Application No.106 of 2015.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
canvassed that both the Courts below erred in holding that the
marriage between the applicant and non-applicant no. 1 had been
8 of 15
(( 9 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
solemnized, despite the absence of sufficient evidence on record.
Furthermore, both Courts failed to appreciate material contradictions,
as no engagement ceremony had taken place, and the applicant came
to know about her marriage only on the previous day. The applicant's
father, Shri Uttam, stated that the applicant and non-applicant no. 1
had not seen each other prior to the marriage; however, their
engagement allegedly took place on 09.09.2014, and the marriage
was fixed on the same day. Contrarily, the applicant's uncle admitted
that the marriage had been fixed 15 days prior to its solemnization.
Although the applicant claimed that more than 50 persons were
present at the wedding but other witnesses during cross-examination
admitted that 500-600 invitees were present at the marriage
ceremony. Therefore, the factum of marriage was not duly proved.
Despite this, both the Courts below recorded perverse findings and
granted monetary benefits. Hence, the petitioners prayed for both
judgments to be quashed and set aside
13. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent supported the findings recorded by both the courts below.
It is canvassed that, on 14.12.2014, marriage between applicant and
non-applicant No.1 solemnized. Since then the applicant and non-
9 of 15
(( 10 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
applicant no. 1 are in domestic relations. After marriage, the
applicant cohabited with her husband Non-applicant No. 1 in the joint
family. Initially, she was treated properly for two months but
subsequently, non-applicant No.1 husband demanded Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh) from parents of the applicant for purchase of
Tractor and due to non fulfillment of said illegal demand, domestic
violence raised against the applicant. The non-applicant no. 1 had
deceived the applicant on account of his first marriage and divorce
and did not allow her to visit neighbours. On 26.02.2015, applicant
visited her parental house and disclosed her parents about raising of
demand of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) by the non-applicants.
On 08.03.2015, her parents and relatives visited house of the non-
applicants and requested them to treat the applicant properly and was
assured to fulfill said demand in the next year. Thereafter, the non-
applicants agreed to maintain the applicant only if Rs.2,00,000/- paid
to them. However, on 17.07.2015, at about 06.00 p.m., the non-
applicants visited parental house of the applicant and at that time, the
non-applicants abused her parents and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and
issued threat to give divorce to the applicant, if the demand is not
fulfilled. So also, the non-applicant No.1 would perform another
10 of 15
(( 11 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
marriage, if the applicant's parents failed to pay said amount and
issued life threat. On the next day, the applicant visited Shirur Police
Station and lodged the complaint, but no cognizance was taken by
the Police. The non-applicants raised domestic violence due to non-
fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry defined under Section 3 of the
D.V. Act. Both the Courts below concurrently held that, marriage
between the applicant wife and non-applicant no. 1 solemnized on
14.12.2014 and the non-applicants raised domestic violence.
Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
14. Since the Petitioners/ori. Non-applicants denied the fact
of solemnization of marriage between the applicant-wife and non-
applicant no. 1-husband. I have gone through the evidence led by
both the sides. The A. W. 1 stated in her evidence affidavit Exh. 6 that,
her marriage solemnized with the Non-applicant no. 1 on 14.12.2014.
In the cross-examination of the applicant, the defence suggested that
no marriage was solemnized, but the applicant denied the said
suggestion. The Non-applicant no. 1 admitted in his cross
examination that, Shri Uttam (A. W. 2) did not compel him to marry
with applicant and no threat was given to him. The applicant deposed
that she cohabited with the non-applicant no. 1 at her matrimonial
11 of 15
(( 12 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
house for two months. Therefore it proves that, marriage between the
applicant and non-applicant no. 1 was solemnized on 14.12.2014.
Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submissions canvassed
on behalf of the petitioners.
15. Sec. 2 (f) of D. V. Act, provides definition of "domestic
relation' means a relationship between two persons who live of 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 family members living together as
a joint family. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties
live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared
household. So where living together has been given up and separate
household is established, belongings are removed, domestic
relationship comes to an end and relationship of being relatives of
each other only survives. Sec. 3 of the D. V. Act, provides that, any
form of abuse causing harm or injury to the physical and/or mental
health of the woman or compromising her life and safety or any
harassment for dowry or to meet any other unlawful demand or issue
threats to cause injury or harm.
12 of 15
(( 13 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
16. In D. Velusawy-Vs- D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the expression 'relationship in
the nature of marriage' by observing in para 33 that, relationship in
the nature of marriage is akin to a common law marriage. Common
law marriages required although not being formally married:
a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being
akin to pouses.
b) They must be 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.
Therefore, 'relationship' in the nature of marriage under
D. V. Act, 2005 must also fulfill the above requirements, and in
addition, the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household'
as defined in section 2 (f) of the Act.
17. Needless to say, both the Courts below have duly
considered the documentary as well as oral evidence available on
record and have concurrently held that, on 14.12.2014, the marriage
between the applicant and non-applicant no. 1 (husband) was
solemnized, and that matrimonial relations between them are still in
13 of 15
(( 14 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
existence. However, on 17.07.2015 at about 6:00 p.m., non-applicant
no. 1, along with his relatives, visited Nandiwali and demanded
₹2,00,000/-. They stated that the applicant (wife) would not be
allowed to cohabit with non-applicant no. 1 unless the said amount
was paid. They further threatened that if the money was not paid,
they would divorce the applicant and allow non-applicant no. 1 to
marry another woman. They also assaulted the applicant. Therefore,
the applicant filed a complaint with the Shirur Kasar Police Station.
18. Needless to say, the applicant-wife has no source of
income, whereas non-applicant no. 1 (husband) is cultivating joint
family land and engaged in the milk business, earning a substantial
income of ₹5,00,000/- per year. Therefore, considering the elements
of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Domestic
Violence Act and the existence of a domestic relationship, the learned
Appellate Court, vide its judgment and order dated 11.01.2019,
affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. on
14.02.2018, which does not appear to be perverse. Hence, I do not
find any substantial grounds to interfere with the findings recorded
by both the Courts below.
14 of 15
(( 15 )) Cri-WP**-306-2019
19. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Writ Petition
is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS
15 of 15
