Bombay High Court

Karishma Amir Dhage C/O Bhimrao Shivaji ... vs Amir Khudbuddin Dhage And Ors on 16 June, 2025

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

2025:BHC-AS:28542
                                                                                    08-WP-3222-2024.doc


                                                                                            Arjun

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                          WRIT PETITION NO.3222 OF 2024
                    Karishma Amir Dhage C/o Bhimrao Shivaji Kapurkar               ...Petitioner
                          Versus
                    Amir Khudbuddin Dhage & Ors.                                   ...Respondents

                                                      WITH
                                          WRIT PETITION NO.3223 OF 2024
                    Karishma Amir Dhage C/o Bhimrao Shivaji Kapurkar               ...Petitioner
                          Versus
                    Amir Khudbuddin Dhage & Ors.                                   ...Respondents
                    _______________________________________________________________

                    Mr. Anand S. Patil, for the Petitioner in both Writ Petitions.
                    Mr. Balwant Salunkhe, for Respondent No.1.
                    Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                    Ms. N. S. Baig, Amicus Curiae, present.
                    _______________________________________________________________

                                                     CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                                     DATED: 16 JUNE 2025

                    JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Anand Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

Balwant Salunkhe, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, Ms. S. D.

Shinde, learned APP for the Respondent-State and Ms. N. S. Baig,

learned Amicus Curiae.

CHALLENGE:

2. The Petitioner has filed proceedings bearing Criminal

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

Miscellaneous Application No.55 of 2022 in the Court of the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Islampur under Sections 12 and 13 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("DV Act")

and filed Interim Application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act bearing

Exhibit-5 seeking interim maintenance. The said Application has been

allowed by the learned JMFC, Islampur by Order dated 17th June 2023.

The learned JMFC granted Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance

and Rs.1,500/- per month towards rent to the Petitioner.

3. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have challenged said Order dated

17th June 2023 under Section 29 of the DV Act by filing Criminal

Appeal No.23 of 2023, whereas the present Petitioner has challenged

said Order dated 17th June 2023 as far as quantum of maintenance and

quantum of residential order by filing Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2023.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur by separate Orders

dated 3rd May 2024 allowed the Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2023 filed

by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and set aside the Order granting

maintenance and for rent in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has

challenged said Order dated 3rd May 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.23 of 2023 by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.3223 of 2024. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur by Order dated 3rd May

2024 dismissed Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2023 filed by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner has challenged said Order by filing Criminal Writ Petition

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

No.3222 of 2024.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

4. Mr. Anand Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that

although there are different Affidavits filed by Kazi-Tajuddin Sardar

Bagwan Kolhapuri, who performed the marriage between the Petitioner

and the Respondent No. 1, however the third Affidavit on Page No.77 of

Writ Petition No.3222 of 2024 clarifies the position. He submitted that

the second Affidavit dated 4th April 2022 (Pages 73 -76) has been

executed by said Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan due to pressure brought by

the Respondent No.1. He submitted that apart from the Affidavits of

said Kari there are Affidavits of two witnesses namely Furkan Anwar

Khan (Pages 68-69) and Farhan Mohammad Kazi (Pages 71-72) who

witnessed the said marriage. He submitted that the marriage took place

on 25th November 2019 and the same was performed by Kazi -

Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan Kolhapuri. Mr. Anand Patil, learned Counsel

submitted that there is compliance of Section 7 of the Muslim Marriage

Act. He submitted that as Respondent No.1 has pressurized the said

Kazi, 2 NCs have been lodged on 1st May 2022 (Page 79) and on 14th

May 2022 (Page 81). He submitted that said Kazi has performed many

marriages and he was working as Imam in Muslim Boarding Society for

more than 26 years. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that the

material on record establishes the performance of the marriage between

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1.

5. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel also pointed out a FIR bearing FIR

No.49 of 2022 which was lodged on 26th January 2022 (Pages 83-85).

He submitted that the same also supports his case about harassment. He

submitted that the network engineer mentioned in said FIR as

occupation of the Petitioner is incorrect and the Petitioner has only

studied upto 12th Std and she is housewife as rightly recorded in the

said FIR.

6. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel submitted that Respondent No.1 at the

relevant time was Upa-Sarpanch and a Gram Panchayat Member and he

is very influential. He submitted that as there is sufficient material to

show that marriage was performed between the Petitioner and

Respondent No.1, therefore the learned Sessions Judge committed

grave illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned Orders.

7. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel pointed out signatures of the

Respondent No.1 on application bearing Exhibit-34 in Criminal

Miscellaneous Application No.55 of 2022 and submitted that the said

signatures are totally different and the Respondent No.1 is in the habit

of putting different signatures.

8. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in

Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur 1 and more particularly on Paragraph 27

of the same.

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 299

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

9. Learned Counsel submitted that it is very significant to note that

before the learned Trial Court. As far as the said register is concerned,

copies of all other marriage certificates are available, except the one

pertaining to the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent

No. 1 as the same has been destroyed by the Respondent No.1.

10. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that the impugned Orders

be quashed and set aside. He submitted that as the Respondent No.1 is

a politically influential and he is a building contractor, maintenance of

Rs.20,000/- per month and rent of Rs.15,000/- per month be granted as

prayed.

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3:

11. On the other hand, Mr. Balwant Salunkhe, learned Counsel for

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that as three Affidavits were filed by

said Kazi contradicting each of the Affidavit no reliance can be placed

on any of the Affidavits. He pointed out call records between Kazi and

the Respondent No.1. He submitted that in any case as the marriage is

doubtful, the Petitioner is not entitled for any interim relief. He

submitted that the marriage certificate on which the Petitioner is relying

is a bogus certificate. The original Nikah Nama has not been produced.

12. Mr. Salunkhe, learned Counsel further submitted that the FIR

which has been lodged by the Petitioner specifically states that the

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

Petitioner is a network engineer. He pointed out the complaint/letter

dated 11th May 2022 sent by the Respondent No.1 to the Police

Inspector, Islampur Police Station. He submitted that said Kazi has given

a bogus certificate by accepting consideration. As the Respondent No.1

questioned him about the same and told him that Respondent No.1

would file police complaint against him, said Kazi informed Respondent

No.1 that he would give proper evidence in the Court to the effect that

said bogus certificate was issued to the Petitioner and therefore the

Respondent No.1 has not taken any further action against said Kazi. He

pointed out the said aspects mentioned in the letter/complaint

addressed to the Police Inspector, Islampur Police Station by letter dated

11th May 2022.

13. Mr. Salunkhe, learned Counsel pointed out Section 2(a), 2(f) and

2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("DV

Act"). He also pointed out points mentioned by the learned Amicus

Curiae in Paragraph Nos.8, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of the written note

submitted by her. He also pointed out the decision of the Supreme Court

in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal 2 and more particularly on Paragraph

No.31 of the same. He has also relied on the Judgment of a learned

Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunil Sandu Ingale vs. Pratibha

Sunil Ingale 3 and more particularly on Paragraph Nos.5 and 14 of the

2 (2010) 10 SCC 469

3. CRA No. 80 of 2021 (Cri) Order dated 22.02.2023, Aurangabad Bench.

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

same. He submitted that if the Petitioner ultimately establishes in said

DV proceedings about the performance of the marriage between the

Petitioner and Respondent No.1, then the Petitioner can be granted

reliefs from the date of application. He therefore submitted that the

challenge to the impugned Orders by these Writ Petitions be not

entertained.

SUBMISSIONS OF MS. N. S. BAIG, LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE:

14. Ms. N. S. Baig, learned Amicus Curiae has in addition to the oral

submissions filed written submissions. Apart from pointing out the

various aspects, she pointed out the points which are in favour of the

Petitioner and also in favour of Respondent No.1. She submitted that

the Marriage Certificate on the basis of which the Petitioner is claiming

right does not have any reference number or register number. She

pointed out various provisions of the Kazis Act, 1880. She submitted

that normally Kazi signs the Nikah Nama in capacity of Kazi but the

present Marriage Certificate is signed by Kazi in capacity of Kaari. She

submitted that Kaari has signed at the place of Kazi and also at the

place of Vakil. She submitted that it is mandatory that permission of

Wali of girl is to be obtained before marriage. Wali in marriage is a male

guardian of bride, who may be his father, grandfather, brother, son and

so on. She has raised several contentions regarding the same. She

submitted that marriage cannot be kept secret and therefore there are

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

certain requirements of a valid marriage in Islam, namely as follows:

"A number of requirements are mentioned in the Quran for marriage, they are:

1- The couple must both be at the age of marriage.

2- Believers may not marry disbelievers or mushrikeen.

3- The couple must make a genuine commitment to one another.

4- The marriage must be declared.

5- The marriage must be contracted.

6- The marriage must be intended as a permanent bond.

7- The man must pay a dowry to his bride."

15. Ms. Baig, learned Amicus Curiae, pointed out that Respondent

No.1 not only denied the marriage but also denied domestic

relationship. She pointed out the decision of the Supreme Court in D.

Velusamy (supra). She submitted that under the DV Act the couple must

cohabit with each other as spouse for a significant period of time.

Merely spending weekends together or one night stand would not make

it a domestic relationship. She pointed out Paragraph No.31 of the

decision of D. Velusamy (supra).

16. Ms. Baig, learned Amicus Curiae also pointed out various aspects

which are in favour of the Petitioner. She submitted that although even

if there are some irregularities presumed in marriage of the Petitioner,

the same does not make the marriage void. She pointed out the decision

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Salim v. Shamsudeen 4 and submitted

that there are three categories of Muslim Marriages:

         i.       Valid Marriage

         ii.      Irregular / Invalid Marriage

         iii.     Void Marriage

Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the marriage if not valid can be

irregular / invalid or void. She submitted that a marriage with a woman

prohibited by reason of consanguinity, affinity or fosterage is void and

the same is void ab initiao. An irregular marriage is one which is not

unlawful in itself but unlawful for something else, and after removal of

such irregularities the irregular marriage comes under the category of

valid marriage. She submitted that the present marriage is not void ab

initio and the same can be either valid or irregular marriage. More

particularly, she relied on Paragraph No.10 of the said decision. She

submitted that both valid and irregular marriage gives status of wife to

a woman. She also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Capt.

Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal 5 and submitted that if two

interpretations are possible then the one which is beneficial to the

weaker section is to be preferred. She submitted that in view of the

circumstances of the case the marriage certificate is prima facie

evidence of the marriage and whether the marriage is valid or irregular

4 (2019) 4 SCC 130 5 (1978) 4 SCC 70

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

is a matter of trial.

REASONING:

17. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to set out

the contentions which the Petitioner has raised in the DV proceedings.

The same are summarized as follows:

i. The Petitioner is the wife of Respondent No.1.

ii. The Petitioner has married Respondent No.1 as per the Muslim

religious rights at Balasaheb Darga, Kolhapur on 25th November 2019.

iii. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 were staying as husband and

wife at Kolhapur by taking a room on rent.

iv. The Respondent No.1 used to come at Kolhapur on several

occasions and sometimes Respondent No. 1 used to take her to the

house of the parents at Peth Naka. However, as the parents of the

Respondent No.1 has raised objection, he was avoiding to take the

Petitioner to the parents' house at Peth Naka, Taluka-Walwa, District-

Sangli.

v. The Petitioner has narrated about the incident which has taken

place on 22nd January 2022 where the Petitioner has gone to said

residence at Peth Naka, Taluka-Walwa, District-Sangli, where the

Petitioner was assaulted by Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

vi. Due to incident of assault which has taken place on 22nd January

2022, FIR has been lodged on 26th January 2022 under Sections 354,

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

323, 324 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

vii. Thereafter, as Respondent No.1 was not maintaining the

Petitioner, she requested him to grant maintenance. However, the

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 abused her on phone.

viii. In the DV proceedings, the contentions are raised regarding

sound financial position of Respondent No.1. It is stated that

Respondent No.1 is a building contractor and he was having a car as

well as a scooter and his monthly income is Rs.2,00,000/-. The

Petitioner has sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month and rent of

Rs.15,000/- per month.

18. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed Reply to the said

application. In the said reply inter alia following contentions are

raised :-

i. The Respondent No.1 is married and he has children.

ii. During the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic Respondent

No.1 and Petitioner came into contact on Facebook and started

contacting each other and during the period she has saved the said

chatting and due to same on the pretext that the said chatting would be

made public, the Petitioner started giving threats and started insisting

that the Petitioner should marry Respondent No.1. Therefore a

complaint has been filed on 22nd January 2022 with the Islampur

Police Station.

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

iii. As the Petitioner was insisting that she would file case with the

police, both Petitioner and Respondent No.1 were arrested under

Section 151(3) and they were produced before the Court on 22nd

January 2022. Both of them were released on bail bond. Thus, it is

contended that there is no marriage performed between the Petitioner

and the Respondent No.1.

iv. The Petitioner is a highly qualified and she is a network engineer.

19. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to set out the

documentary evidence.

The documentary evidence produced by Petitioner:

i. The Petitioner has produced a Marriage Certificate dated 25th

November 2019 (Page No. 66). The same bears signature of Kazi/Kari-

Tajuddin Sardan Kolhapuri and of two witnesses namely Furkan Anwar

Khan and Farhan Mohammad Kaji.

ii. Affidavit dated 31st March 2022 (Page No.65) of Tajuddin Sardar

Bagwan i.e. Kazi/Kari who performed the marriage. In the said Affidavit

it is stated that said Kazi performed the marriage of Petitioner and

Respondent No.1 on 25th November 2019 as per the Muslim religious

rights and accordingly has issued the said Marriage Certificate. It is

stated in the said Affidavit that the contents of said Marriage Certificate

are correct and at that time Farhan Mohammad Kazi and Furkan Anwar

Khan were present as witnesses and they have signed the said marriage

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

certificate as witnesses.

iii. Affidavit dated 9th June 2022 of Furkan Anwar Khan i.e. witness

to the said marriage (Page No.68). He has stated in the said Affidavit

that the marriage was performed between the Petitioner and

Respondent No.1 on 25th November 2019 by said Tajuddin Sardar

Bagwan in his presence as per the Muslim religious rights. It is stated

that on the said Marriage Certificate said Furkan Anwar Khan and

Farhan Mohammad Kazi have signed as witnesses and also the said

Marriage Certificate is signed by the Petitioner and Respondent No.1.

iv. Affidavit dated 9th June 2022 of Farhan Mohammad Kazi (Page

No.71). He has stated in the said Affidavit that the marriage was

performed between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 on 25th

November 2019 by said Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan in his presence as per

the Muslim religious rights. It is stated that on the said Marriage

Certificate said Furkan Anwar Khan and Farhan Mohammad Kazi have

signed as witnesses and also the said Marriage Certificate is signed by

the Petitioner and Respondent No.1.

v. Copy of FIR bearing FIR No.49 of 2022 dated 26th January 2022

(Page No.83) lodged by the Petitioner about the assault made on 22nd

January 2022 by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the said FIR it is

mentioned that the Petitioner is housewife, however it is further stated

that she is "Network Engineer". It is the contentions of the Petitioner

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

that the Petitioner has passed only upto 12 th Standard and it is

incorrectly mentioned that she is a "Network Engineer". In any case, it

is specifically stated that she is housewife.

vi. Affidavit dated 14th April 2022 of Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan

Kolhapuri (Page No. 77) inter alia confirming about the performance of

said marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 and

further stating that the Respondent No. 1 alongwith some political

persons came to his residence on 2nd April 2022 and 4th April 2022 and

his signature was taken on the some paper without allowing him to

read the same and also took away Nikhanama Book. It has been further

stated that the Respondent No. 1 told said Kazi-Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan

Kolhapuri that the said Nikhanama Book was destroyed. It is further

stated in the said Affidavit that he is Imam Kari and entitled to perform

marriage and he has performed several marriages and issued

certificates. He has performed the marriage between the Petitioner and

the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly issued marriage certificate.

Alongwith the said Affidavit dated 14th April 2022 of said Tajuddin

Sardar Bagwan NCs dated 1st May 2022 and 14th May 2022 filed by

said Kazi against the Respondent No.1 are also produced concerning the

threat given by the Respondent No. 1 and about forcibly taking away of

said Nikhanama Book.

The documentary evidence produced by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

i. Affidavit dated 4th April 2022 (Page 74) of said Kari Tajuddin

Sardar Bagwan Kolhapuri, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner and

Respondent No.1 are not known to said Kari. The Petitioner approached

said Kari about 10 days back and she gave an amount of Rs.6,000/- and

for said consideration a bogus Nikah Nama / Marriage Certificate was

prepared and handed over to her. It is stated that said marriage was

never performed by him.

ii. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have also produced details of call record

between the Respondent No.1 and said Kari in a Pen-Drive.

iii. A copy of application/complaint dated 11th May 2022 filed with

the Islampur Police Station.

iv. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 produced Nikah Nama Book

maintained by said Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan Kolhapuri, to substantiate

that same do not contain office copy of the certificate dated 25th

November 2019 issued regarding marriage between the Petitioner and

the Respondent No.1.

[Note: It is the submission of the Petitioner that the fact that said Nikah

Nama Book was produced in the Court by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3

clearly substantiates the contents of the Affidavit dated 14th April 2022

of the said Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan Kolhapuri that the Respondent No.1

alongwith few of his political associates came at his residence on 2nd

April 2022 and 4th April 2022 and forcibly took away said Nikahnama

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

Book and informed that the said Nikahnama Book was destroyed. It is

the contention of the Petitioner that the said Nikahnama Book should

have been in possession of the said Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan. It is the

further submission of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 has

destroyed the office copy of marriage certificate dated 25th November

2019 concerning marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1

as available in the said Nikhanama Book].

20. In view of the above documentary evidence, it is necessary to

summarize the reasons given by the learned Sessions Court while

allowing the Appeal filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and dismissing the

Appeal filed by the Petitioner. The learned Sessions Court has inter alia

given following reasons:

A) Applicant claims herself to be the wife of opponent No. 1. In support of her contention, she relied on the Nikahnama filed on record. However, the Kazi who alleged to performed the marriage has filed two contrary affidavits in a court. In one affidavit, he claimed that no such marriage took place, whereas, in another affidavit, he claimed that he had performed the marriage. The Kazi has not yet been examined in court. Under such circumstances, when there are two contrary affidavits of the same person, on whose reliance the document is filed, it comes under the shadow of doubt and no prima facie reliance can be placed on such a document.

B) Moreover, the said Nikahnama is not having any serial number to show its genuineness. The applicant herself has alleged that as it was a love marriage, hence, no person from her family was present in her marriage. As per Muslim law, at the time of Nikah, the wife also be represented by her Vakil.

This fact prima facie creates doubt over the marriage of the applicant with opponent No.1.

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

C) At the time of drafting the petition, the learned advocate had wisely drafted the petition and tried to show that the applicant was residing with opponent no. 1 at his house at Peth Naka, Islampur. In this context, I perused the title clause and the place of the resident of the applicant. It was shown to be vaguely at Islampur. Whereas, the place of residence of opponent No. 1 was shown as near Union Bank, Peth Naka, Tal. Walwa. Thus, from the title clause of the petition itself, it appears that the applicant is not residing with opponent no. 1 at his house at Peth Naka.

D) The applicant never came to the house of opponent No. 1 at Peth Naka. She used to reside at Rajarampuri. Thus, this fact shows that the applicant was not living with opponent No. 1 in the shared household at Peth Naka. As mentioned earlier it is a wise drafting, to show the relationship and share household at Peth Naka to bring the present application within the jurisdiction of Islampur Court.

E) From the contention of the applicant, it appears that opponent No. 1 has not come to her since 2019, hence she came in search of opponent No. 1 at Islampur and there was a dispute between opponent No. 2 and 3. They abused and assaulted her. As mentioned supra, the applicant never resided with opponents No. 2 and 3 at Peth Naka. Hence, taking cognizance against these persons under the D.V. Act is doubtful.

F) Opponent No. 1 came with a specific case of 'honey trap'. Now a days, such types of cases are increasing in society. This fact cannot be ignored while deciding the application for interim maintenance. Misuse of the D.V. Act can't be ruled out.

G) As mentioned supra by the Hon'ble High Court, when the alleged marriage itself is under the shadow of a doubt, the Magistrate shall refrain himself from granting the interim maintenance. In the present case, it appears that the learned Magistrate has ignored this fact and awarded the maintenance to the applicant.

21. Thus, the learned Sessions Court has recorded prima facie finding

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

that in view of two contradictory Affidavits filed by Kazi, there is grave

doubt and the said marriage is under the shadow of doubt. However, it

is required to be noted that there are 3 Affidavits filed by said Kazi. The

learned Sessions Court has completely ignored the third Affidavit dated

14th April 2022 which is very relevant. The said third Affidavit reads as

under:

ßvW fQ Ms Ogh V

eh Jh- rktqÌhu ljnkj ckxoku] ¼eks-ua- 09371114224½ o-o-74] O;olk;] lg- laiknd LokxrokMh @ beke] jk-1653] xath xYyh] lkseokj isB] dksYgkiwj ;sFks lR; izfrKsoj dFku djrks dh] eh vtZnkj dq- dfj'ek ckcq[kku iBk.k o tkcnkj Jh- vfej dqrcqqÌhu <xs ;kapk fookg fnukad % 25@11@2019 bkk jksth eqfLye i/nrhus ihj ckyslkgsc ckc nxkZg] dksYgkiwj ;sFks eh le{k fookg ykowu fnysyk vkgs] R;kckcr R;kauk lnj fookgkps lfVZfQdsV fnysys vlwu] R;kojhy lgh gh ek>hp vkgs- fookg uksan nk[kY;krhy etdwj [kjk o cjkscj vkgs- lnj fookgkosGh Jh Qjgku egaen dk>h] Jh- Qqjdku vuoj [kku ;kauh lk{khnkj Eg.kwu ek>s le{k lg;k dsysY;k vkgsr- ojhy Eg.k.kse/;s fnysyk laiw.kZ etdwj ek>s ekfgrh o letqrhizek.ks [kjk o cjkscj vkgs- R;kcÌy eh fnukad % 31@03@2022 jksth vWfQMsOghV fnys vkgs-

R;kuarj tkcnkj vfej dqrcqqÌhu <xs ;kauh fnukad % 02@04@2022 bkk jksth ekÖ;k ?kjh ;sowu vkjMkvksjMk d: ykxys o fudkgukek cksxl vkgs vls Eg.kqu ekÖ;k ?kjh ;sowu nenkVh d: ykxys o fudkgkukek cqd nk[ko.;kl lkafxrys o rs ?ksowu xsys- ijr djrks Eg.kwu Ik.k R;kuarj fnukad % 04@04@2022 jksth vfej dqrcqqÌhu <xs o dkgh jktdh; yksdkauk ?ksowu eyk FkksMa cksyk;pa vkgs- Eg.kwu ?kjkckgsj ?ksowu xsys o eyk nenkVh d:u dkgh dkxnkojrh ekÖ;kdMwu u okprk etdwj fygwu ?ksryk vkgs o vfej dqrcqqÌhu <xs ;kus ekÖ;kdMwu fygwu ?ksrysyk loZ etdwj [kksVk o pqdhpk vkgs- R;kuarj eh fudkgukek cqd ekfxrY;koj rs QkMwu Vkd.;kr vkys vls lkafxrys-

eh rktqÌhu ljnkj ckxoku vlwu] beke] dkjh eh LokxrokMh lg laiknd vkgs vkf.k eqfLye cksfMZxa lkslk;Vhe/;s beker Eg.kwu 26 o"ksZ lfOgZl dsyh vkgs- beke ;k ukR;kus eyk yXu ykowu ns.;kpk vf/kdkj vkgs- eh [kwi lkjs yXu ykowu fnyh vkgsr r'kkp izdkjs dfj'ek ckcq[kku iBk.k] tckcnkj vehj dqrcqqÌhu <xs ;kapk fookg fnukad 25@11@2019 jksth eqfLye i/nrhus ihj ckyslkgsc ckck nxkZg] dksYgkiwj ;sFks eh le{k fookg ykowu fnysyk vkgs- R;kcÌy R;kauk lnj fookgkps lfVZfQdsV fnysys vlwu] lnj fookgkosGh Jh-

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

Qjgku egaen dk>h] Jh- Qqjdku vuoj [kku ;kauh lk{khnkj Eg.kwu ek>s le{k lg;k dsysY;k vkgsr- rlsp R;kojhy lgh gh ek>hp vkgs o uksVjhlq/nk [kjh vkgs-Þ

22. Thus, what is stated in the third Affidavit dated 14th April 2022 is

that on 2nd April 2022 Respondent No.1 has come to the residence of

said Kazi and he was abusing him and took the Nikah Nama register.

Thereafter, on 4th April 2022 said Respondent No.1 came along with

some politically influential persons and took said Kazi outside the house

and got his signature on some papers by abusing him. It is further stated

in the said Affidavit that when said Nikah Nama register was demanded

by said Kazi, it was told to him that the said Nikahnama Registrar has

been destroyed. In the said Affidavit, it has been stated that he is

working for 26 years with Muslim Boarding Society as Imam and he has

performed many marriages and that he has performed marriage of the

Petitioner and Respondent No.1 on 25th November 2019.

23. The contents of the said Affidavit dated 14th April 2022 of said

Kazi has been substantiated as the said register (Nikah Nama Book) has

been produced by the Respondent No.1 before the learned Trial Court,

wherein as far as the concerned Certificate is concerned, the office copy

of the same was not found. Thus, the contents of above said Affidavit

dated 14th April 2022 are completely substantiated by the conduct of

the Respondent No.1 by which he has produced the said Nikanama

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

should have been in the custody of said Kazi - Tajuddin Sardar Bagwan

Kolhapuri.

24. It is significant to note that the learned Appellate Court while

recording that there is doubt regarding the said marriage, has

completely ignored the Affidavit of witnesses to the marriage i.e.

Affidavit of Furkan Anwar Khan and Affidavit of Farhan Mohammad

Kazi. There is no contradiction with respect to the said Affidavit and no

contradictory Affidavits are filed by them.

25. Thus, the position on record prima facie clearly shows that

marriage has been performed between the Petitioner and Respondent

No.1. The Respondent No.1 is politically influential perrson in the said

locality as he was at the relevant time Upa-Sarpanch and the Member of

Gram Panchayat. The Respondent No.1 also is a construction contractor

and therefore financially also very sound.

26. In view of the above position, it is relevant to note the decision of

Mohammed Salim (supra) as submitted by learned Amicus Curiae and

more particularly on Paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the same, which reads

as under :-

"24. We find that the same position has been reiterated in the 21st Edn. of Mulla as follows. The distinction between void and irregular marriages has been dealt with in Section 264 at p. 349:

"(1) A marriage which is not valid may be either void or irregular.

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

(2) A void marriage is one which is unlawful in itself, the prohibition against the marriage being perpetual and absolute. Thus, a marriage with a woman prohibited by reason of consanguinity (Section 260), affinity (Section 261), or fosterage (Section 262), is void, the prohibition against marriage with such a woman being perpetual and absolute.

(3) An irregular marriage is one which is not unlawful in itself, but unlawful 'for something else', as where the prohibition is temporary or relative, or when the irregularity arises from an accidental circumstance, such as the absence of witnesses. Thus, the following marriages are irregular, namely:

(a) a marriage contracted without witnesses (Section

254);

(b) a marriage with a fifth wife by a person having four wives (Section 255);

(c) a marriage with a woman undergoing iddat (Section

257);

(d) a marriage prohibited by reason of difference of religion (Section 259);

(e) a marriage with a woman so related to the wife that if one of them had been a male, they could not have lawfully intermarried (Section 263).

The reason why the aforesaid marriages are irregular, and not void, is that in clause (a) the irregularity arises from an accidental circumstance; in clause (b) the objection may be removed by the man divorcing one of his four wives; in clause

(c) the impediment ceases on the expiration of the period of iddat; in clause (d) the objection may be removed by the wife becoming a convert to the Mussalman, Christian or Jewish religion, or the husband adopting the Moslem faith; and in clause (e) the objection may be removed by the man divorcing the wife who constitutes the obstacle; thus, if a man who has already married one sister marries another, he may divorce the first, and make the second lawful to himself."

(emphasis supplied)

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

25. The effect of an irregular (fasid) marriage has been dealt with in Section 267 at pp. 350-51 of the 21st Edn. of Mulla as follows:

"267. Effect of an irregular (fasid) marriage.--(1) An irregular marriage may be terminated by either party, either before or after consummation, by words showing an intention to separate, as where either party says to the other "I have relinquished you". An irregular marriage has no legal effect before consummation.

(2) If consummation has taken place--

(i) the wife is entitled to dower, proper or specified, whichever is less (Sections 286, 289);

(ii) she is bound to observe the iddat, but the duration of the iddat both on divorce and death is three course [see Section 257(2)];

(iii) the issue of the marriage is legitimate. But an irregular marriage, though consummated, does not create mutual rights of inheritance between husband and wife...."

(Emphasis added)

27. The learned Amicus Curiae on the basis of the factual position

and on the basis of the documentary evidence has submitted that there

is prima facie evidence of marriage. The marriage is either valid or

irregular marriage, however, the same gives status of wife to the

Petitioner. It is further submitted by her that whether the marriage is

valid or irregular is a matter of trial.

28. Thus, prima facie there is sufficient evidence to show that the

marriage has been performed between the Petitioner and Respondent

No.1 on 25th November 2019. In fact, the material on record also

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

shows that the marriage is valid marriage. The material on record

further shows that the Respondent No.1 has attempted to ensure that

the evidence regarding marriage is destroyed and also he has

pressurized the witnesses with the help of other politically influential

persons.

29. In view of the above position, it is necessary to consider

submission of Mr. Salunkhe, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1

to 3. He has pointed out Sections 2(a), 2(f) and 2(s) of the DV Act,

which read as under:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

...

(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or 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 are family members living together as a joint family;

...

(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or alongwith the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;"

30. On the basis of the above provisions, it is the submission of Mr.

Salunkhe, learned Counsel that the Petitioner is not the aggrieved

person. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in D.

Velusamy (supra) and more particularly on Paragraph No.31 of the

same, which reads as under:

"31. In our opinion a "relationship in the nature of marriage" is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married:

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of 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.

(See "Common Law Marriage" in Wikipedia on Google.)

In our opinion a "relationship in the nature of marriage"

under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a "shared household" as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a "domestic relationship"."

31. It is significant to note that the above Paragraph on which Mr.

Salunkhe, has heavily relied is concerning the relationship in the nature

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

of marriage. In the present case, there is sufficient documentary

evidence to show that the marriage has been performed between the

Petitioner and Respondent No.1. In any case the material on record

shows that the above parameters are also fulfiled.

32. It is the submission of Mr. Salunkhe, learned Counsel on the basis

of Sections 2(a), 2(f) and 2(s) of the DV Act that the Petitioner is not in

a domestic relationship with the Respondent No.1. He submitted that

domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who

live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household,

when they are related by marriage or through relationship in nature of

marriage. He submitted that share household means a household where

the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic

relationship either singly or along with the respondent. He submitted

that as at no point of time Respondent No.1 has stayed with the

Petitioner together it cannot be said that she was staying in a share

household and therefore she can be termed as aggrieved person as per

the provisions of the DV Act.

33. However, it is required to be noted that even the learned Sessions

Judge has also observed that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.1

were staying together at Kolhapur and the contention regarding

residence at Peth Naka, Islampur was raised just for the purpose of

contending that Islampur Court has jurisdiction.

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

34. It is required to be noted that the Petitioner has come up with a

specific case that after the marriage the Petitioner has acquired premises

on rental basis at Kolhapur and he was staying along with her in the

said premises. It is further stated that although initially the Respondent

No.1 took the Petitioner at the premises at Peth Naka, Islampur,

however, thereafter the Respondent No.1 due to opposition of

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have refrained to take Petitioner to Peth Naka,

Islampur.

35. As already noted herein above, the Petitioner is a politically

influential person as he was Upa-Sarpanch and also financially sound as

he is a building contractor. The manner in which he has tried to destroy

the evidence regarding marriage shows that his version is not

believable.

36. It is also required to be noted that the Petitioner's sister was

married about 12 years back and she stays at Peth Naka, Islampur and

the Petitioner came in contact with Respondent No.1 as she used to go

to Peth Naka, Islampur at her sister's place and thereafter the love

relationship developed between them and the marriage between the

Petitioner and Respondent No.1 took place on 25th November 2019.

37. In this background of the matter, it is required to note the

contention which the Respondent No.1 has raised. He has stated that

during the period of lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic the

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

Respondent No.1 came in contact with Petitioner through Facebook

communication.

38. The overwhelming evidence on record shows that the marriage

between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 took place on 25th

November 2019 which is much prior to the said COVID-19 pandemic.

Thus, it is clear that prima facie the Respondent No.1 has come with a

totally a false case and therefore his version is not be reliable. One of

the reason given by the learned Appellate Court to set aside the order of

the learned Trial Court is that although the Petitioner was staying at

Kolhapur, she has raised contentions regarding stay at Peth Naka,

Islampur just to bring the case filed under DV Act under the jurisdiction

of Islampur Court. Admittedly, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are staying at

Peth Naka, Taluka-Walwa, District-Sangli, Islampur i.e. under the

jurisdiction of Islampur Court.

39. In the above background, it is necessary to see Section 27

concerning jurisdiction, which reads as under:

"27. Jurisdiction.--(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which--

(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or

(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or

(c) the cause of action has arisen,

08-WP-3222-2024.doc

shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.