Suresh S/O Kahiram Mapari vs Ranjana Ashok Polkar
2025 Latest Caselaw 8107 Bom

Bombay High Court

Suresh S/O Kahiram Mapari vs Ranjana Ashok Polkar on 28 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:13165
                                                                               wp541.2025jud.odt




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 541 OF 2025

          Suresh s/o Kahiram Mapari
          Aged about 46 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
          R/o. Dhanora, Post - Kalamba Mahali,                            ... Petitioner
          Dist. Washim
                                   Versus
          Ranjana Ashok Polkar
          (styled as Ranjana Suresh Mapari in complaint)
          Aged about 39 years, Occ.: Housewife,                          ... Respondent
          R/o. Lahuji Nagar, Washim,
          Tq. & Dist. Washim


          Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for petitioner.
          Dr. Mohan S. Gawai, Advocate a/w Mr. V.S. Wankhade, Advocate for
          respondent.

                                       CORAM :             M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
                              RESERVED ON             :    14.11.2025
                         PRONOUNCED ON                :    28.11.2025

          JUDGMENT:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.

(2) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order

dated 21.05.2025 passed below Exhibit 10 in PWDV No.16/2023, by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Washim,

wherein the Exhibit 10 filed by the present petitioner, came to be

PAGE 1 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

rejected. Further, the petitioner is praying for quashing of the entire

proceedings filed under the Protection from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 ("Domestic Violence Act") which is pending before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class.

(3) The learned counsel for petitioner submits that

Exhibit 10 was filed by the petitioner raising preliminary objection in

respect of the maintainability of the application filed by respondent

herein under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic

Violence Act. The application at Exhibit 10 was filed raising an

objection on the ground that the application is not maintainable, as the

petitioner and respondent are neither married nor have any

relationship in the nature of marriage thereby having shared household.

In view of the aforesaid, there was no domestic relationship between

them at any given time and therefore, the respondent herein is not the

aggrieved person.

(4) He further submits that the agreement which was

placed on record by the respondent, wherein it is stated that the

petitioner and respondent had a love affair, which has come to an end,

that by itself would not fall under the definition of domestic

relationship, which is defined under Section 2(f) of the Protection of

PAGE 2 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. There is or was no

relationship ever subsisting between the parties which could be

gathered from various documents which are placed on record. My

attention was invited to the First Information Report No.857/2022

lodged by one Sau. Lata Pandit Wankhede, wherein the name of the

respondent was shown as 'Sau Ranjana Ashok Polkar'. The said FIR has

culminated into charge-sheet wherein also the name of the respondent

is recorded as 'Ranjana Polkar' everywhere which could be gathered

from different statements recorded by the Investigation Officer under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, an application

filed by the respondent in Misc. Criminal Application No.551/2022

opposing the bail application of the present petitioner was pointed out

wherein the name again is shown as 'Ranjana Polkar'. Even in Election

Petition Appeal No.11/2016, the respondent has shown her name as

'Rajana Ashok Polkar'. Not only that, the respondent has also instituted

Special Atrocity Case No.59/2014 against one Kashiram Sitaram

Idhole, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 417 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, wherein while

deposing before the Court she has shown her name as 'Ranjana

Dattatraya Mamidwar', but also in the voters' list and ration card her

PAGE 3 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

name appears as 'Rajana Ashok Polkar'. Accordingly, he submits that

from the entire record, it is clearly demonstrated that the petitioner

does not have any relationship with the respondent and she is the wife

of 'Ashok Polkar'.

(5) He further submits that the petitioner is not

husband and merely being in a live-in-relationship will not amount to a

relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit under the

Domestic Violence Act. To buttress his submission, he has relied on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V.

Sarma, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755, wherein the observations of the

Apex Court in paragraph No. 68, which are relevant is as under:

"68. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage. All live-in- relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. Appellant's and the respondent's relationship is, therefore, not a "relationship in the nature of marriage" because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than "in the nature of marriage" and the appellant's status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of

PAGE 4 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

relationship, would not amount to "domestic violence" under Section 3 of the DV Act."

(6) Further reliance was place on the judgment of this

Court in the case of Durgesh Yuvraj Rahangdale Vs. Rajni

Krushnadatta Ukey, reported in 2014 (1) ABR (Cri) 339, para 11 is

reproduced as under :

"11. It can, thus, clearly be seen that the Apex Court in unequivocal terms held that all live-in-relationships will not amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. It has been held that to get such benefits, it is necessary to prove that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses, they must be of legal age to marry, they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried and they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time."

(7) Lastly, it was submitted that without there being

any cause of action when the petitioner has no concern with the

respondent, the application under the provisions of Domestic Violence

Act was filed which is frivolous and therefore, prayed to allow the

present petition.

(8) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing

for the respondent submits that the respondent is the wife of the

petitioner, their marriage took place on 17.03.2021 at Washim, in

PAGE 5 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

presence of relatives and friends and on the same day, the petitioner

executed an agreement in favour of the respondent wherein it was

admitted by the petitioner that they were in a relationship since last 4

to 5 years and they have started living as spouses which was duly sworn

by the petitioner on 01.04.2021,with signature and seal of Executive

Magistrate, Washim. After marriage, the petitioner and respondent

lived together for one year and thereafter, the petitioner started ill-

treating and torturing the respondent. Due to respondent being

assaulted by the petitioner, FIR vide Crime No.857/2022 came to be

registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The documents

which are placed along with the application by the respondent in the

proceedings initiated under the Domestic Violence Act is sufficient to

demonstrate that the petitioner and respondent are having domestic

relationship in the nature of marriage. The definition of domestic

relationship and domestic violence cannot be given a restrictive

interpretation, otherwise the very purpose of enacting the said act

would be frustrated. He further submits that pursuant to respondent

being subjected to domestic violence by the petitioner the application

came to be filed by the respondent under the provisions of Domestic

Violence Act. So as to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, reliance

was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.

PAGE 6 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal, reported in 2010 (10) SCC 469 on

paragraph nos.38 and 39, which reads as under:

"38. Coming back to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court and the learned Family Court Judge erred in law in holding that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi without even issuing notice to Lakshmi. Hence this finding has to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Family Court which may issue notice to Lakshmi and after hearing her give a fresh finding in accordance with law. The question whether the appellant was married to the respondent or not can, of course, be decided only after the aforesaid finding.

39. There is also no finding in the judgment of the learned Family Court Judge on the question whether the appellant and respondent had lived together for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage. In our opinion such findings were essential to decide this case. Hence we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and Family Court Judge, Coimbatore and remand the matter to the Family Court Judge to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Appeals allowed."

(9) Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and respondent, it appears that respondent herein has

filed an application under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act,

2005, praying for protection order, residence order, and maintenance

order with a further prayer to pass the order of expenditure of marriage

incurred by the respondent of Rs.8,00,000/- and compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner.

PAGE 7 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

(10) It is specifically contended in the application that

the petitioner and respondent are spouses and they got married on

17.03.2021 at Washim in the presence of relatives and family friends

and on the same day, the petitioner has executed an agreement in

favour of the respondent, which was sworn by the petitioner on

01.04.2021. It is stated in the application filed under the provisions of

the Domestic Violence Act that they have lived together for one year

and thereafter, the petitioner started threatening as well as mentally and

physically torturing the respondent. Based on these allegations, the

aforesaid application was filed.

(11) It further appears that the petitioner has raised a

preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the

application filed by the respondent under the provisions of the

Domestic Violence Act on the ground that the respondent is not the

wife of petitioner and there is no domestic relationship between the

couple and even the relationship in the nature of marriage does not

exist between them. Therefore, the respondent is not an aggrieved

person as contemplated under Section 2(a) of the Act. It further

appears that the respondent has filed written statement to answer the

preliminary objection raised by the petitioner and whatever is

PAGE 8 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

contended in the original application, same was repeated in the said

written statement.

(12) After perusal of the entire record, it can be said

that from the application which was filed by the respondent, she has

specifically averred that the petitioner and respondent are husband &

wife, their marriage took place on 17.03.2021 and on the same day, the

agreement was executed by the petitioner. The contents of the said

agreement are important those are reproduced below :

djkjukek

fygwu ns.kkj % lqjs"k dk"khjke ekikjh 46 o'kZ okf"ke rk- ft- okf"ke fygwu ?ks.kkj % jatuk ikSGdj o; 36 jk- ygwth uxj okf"ke rk- ft- okf"ke HkkMs djkjukek fygwu nsrks dh] eh vkt jksth fnukad 17@03@2021 jksth fygwu nsrks dh] jatuk ikSGdj o; 36 o'kZs efgys"kh ek>s 4 rs 5 o'kZ izsekps laca/k vkgs o rs laiq'Vkr vkys vkgs vkf.k vkEgh nks?ksgh iRuh lkj[ks jkgrks i.k dkgh fnolkiwohZ ek>h ifgyh izsfedk :ikyh nsokuan cy[kaMs fgpseqGs jatuk o ek÷;kr okn gksr vkgs o R;keqGs eh jatyk d/kh lksM.kkj ukgh- ck;dks izsekus fryk okx.kwd ns.kkj QDr frP;k loZ tckcnkÚ;k ikj ikMukj frP;k dqVwackrhy eyk dkghgh ?ks.k ukgh- dfjrk gk djkjuke fygwu nsr vkgs-

                                                                  lº;k

          fygwu ns.kkj %    lqjs"k dk"khjke ekikjh
          fygwu ?ks.kkj %   jatuk ikSGdj


(13)                   Upon perusal of the contents, though the said

agreement is shown as a rent agreement, however, the contents of the

PAGE 9 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

same are quite clear wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner

was having a love affair with the respondent since last four to five years,

however, the said relation has ended. Further, it is stated that they both

are living as husband and wife however, a rift has arisen between them

due to one Rupali, who is the earlier lover of petitioner. It is further

stated that the petitioner will not leave the respondent, will treat her as

his wife and he will bear all of her responsibilities.

(14) It appears from the record which was placed before

this Court in the form of FIR and other documents, that the petitioner

and respondent are in a relationship since long. It prima facie appears

from the application filed by the respondent and the agreement

between the parties that they are living together and having relations

with each other. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Sarma (supra) has

laid down guidelines to identify "relationship in the nature of marriage"

in para No.56 which reads as under :

"56. We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will definitely give some insight to such relationships.

"56.1. Duration of period of relationship - Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression "at any point of time", which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship

PAGE 10 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

56.2. Shared household - The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.

56.3. Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements - Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.

56.4. Domestic Arrangements - Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

56.5. Sexual Relationship - Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc. 56.6. Children - Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. The parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.

56.7. Socialization in Public - Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage.

56.8. Intention and conduct of the parties - Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective rules and responsibilities, primarily determines the nature of that relationship."

PAGE 11 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

(15) From the aforesaid guidelines, prima facie the

relationship of the present parties fall under all the above category

except 56.6 as they do not have children of their own. The agreement

dated 17.03.2021 in unequivocal term states that the parties were in a

relationship since long and they have started living as spouses. The

petitioner will treat the respondent as his wife and will bear all her

responsibilities. Further, the perusal of the complaint under the

provisions of Domestic Violence Act demonstrates that the respondent

did not have knowledge about petitioner's prior marriage and she got

to know the same after entering into a relationship and marriage with

him.

(16) The right to lead evidence of both the parties

cannot be curtailed at the inception itself. Therefore, unless and until

full-fledged trial has taken place, the application filed by the

respondent cannot be thrown out. Even the documents which are

placed by the petitioner cannot be considered unless those are proved

by the petitioner before the Trial Court. Prima facie, it appears that the

petitioner is having domestic relationship in the nature of marriage and

the application filed by the respondent under the Domestic Violence

Act, has to be entertained by the Trial Court in the interest of justice so

as to find out the nature of relationship between the parties. At this

PAGE 12 OF 13 wp541.2025jud.odt

stage it cannot be concluded that the respondent is not an aggrieved

person as prima facie she appears to be an aggrieved person as per

Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act. However, for discovering

real nature of relationship between the parties, conducting trial is

necessary as the aforesaid observations are only prima facie

observations of this Court.

(17) Further, the argument advanced by the learned

counsel for petitioner that the entire record depicts that the respondent

maintains her name as 'Ranjana Ashok Polkar' deserves no

consideration for the reason that the same by itself is not sufficient to

come to the conclusion that she was not having any domestic

relationship with the petitioner in the nature of marriage.

(18) Therefore, considering the above facts and

circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the case and therefore,

the same is dismissed. Needles to clarify that the Trial Court shall not

be influenced by the aforesaid observations of this Court and shall

adjudicate the matter on its own merits.

                     (19)                 Rules is discharged.



                                                                      [M.M. NERLIKAR, J.]
                     Prity



Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane                                                            PAGE 13 OF 13
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/11/2025 17:50:16