[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pravin S/O Satyanarayan Battulwar And ... vs Meena W/O Pravin Battulwar And Another on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1174
3 wp 209.24.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.209/2024
1. Pravin Satyanarayan Battulwar,
Age 24 yrs., Occ. Agriculture,
2. Satyanarayan Mallya Battulwar,
Age 45 yrs., Occ. Agriculture,
3. Laxmibai Satyanarayan Batulwar,
Age 40 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
4. Chayarani Pravin Battulwar,
Age 26 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
All R/o. Raygatta, Tah. Aheri,
Dist. Gadchiroli.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Meena Pravin Battulwar,
Age 22 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
2. Shrinidhi d/o. Pravin Battulwar,
Age 8 months, Occ. N.A.
All R/o. Matoshri Lokmangal
Sanstha, Ghot, Tah. Chamorshi,
Dist. Gadchiroli
(Through respondent No.1)
...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.R. Fule, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. J.A. Anthony, Advocate for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 wp 209.24.odt
2
CORAM : M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 20.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the
learned counsel for respondents.
2. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing and setting
aside of the entire proceedings including impugned orders dated
08.09.2022 and 19.10.2023 in PWDVA No. 20/2022 filed by
respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act,2005 ("D.V Act") before Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chamorshi.
3. The principal challenge is to the proceedings initiated
by the present respondents under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no
relationship in the nature of marriage between the parties. The
FIR was lodged by the present respondent No.1 on 07.05.2022
alleging sexual abuse by the present petitioner No.1. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on
26.06.2022. The petitioner No.4 got married with petitioner
3 wp 209.24.odt
No.1 on 06.07.2022. He further submits that the couple never
lived in a shared household and therefore the relationship
cannot come within the purview of definition of Domestic
Relationship. As the petitioner No.1 and respondents do not
have any relationship, therefore even their relationship does
not fall under the said definition of 'Domestic Relationship and
Relationship in the nature of marriage'. He invited my
attention to the FIR which was registered, wherein the present
respondent No.1 has made allegations against the present
petitioner No.1 stating that at the relevant time, she was
residing with her brother at Alapalli and at Aheri with her
friend. Therefore, he submits that it cannot be said that they
lived in a shared household. By relying on the decision of the
Supreme Court in case of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal,
2010 DGLS(SC) 835, though the relationship in the nature of
marriage is not defined, however the Supreme Court in the said
judgment has carved out certain guidelines in order to interpret
the 'relationship in the nature of marriage'. The following
3 wp 209.24.odt
guidelines has been laid down by the Apex Court to identify
'relationship in the nature of marriage:-
a] The couple must hold themselves out to the
society as being akin to spouses.
b] They must be of legal age to marry.
c] They must be otherwise qualified to enter into
legal marriage including being unmarried.
d) They must have voluntarily co-habited and held
themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses
for significant period of time."
My attention was invited to the first ingredient that is the
couple must hold themselves out in society as being akin to
spouses. He has mainly harped upon the fact that the parties
have not portrayed themselves as spouses to the society and
therefore the very first ingredient for establishing 'relationship
in the nature of marriage' is not made out. He submits that
merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would
not come under the purview of domestic relationship as was
observed by the Supreme Court in the case of D. Velusamy
(supra). The complaint is nothing but a revengeful act and
therefore the complaint is required to be quashed.
3 wp 209.24.odt
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents vehemently opposed the petition and invited
my attention to the contents of the complaint filed by the
respondents under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The learned
counsel pointed out the order passed below Exh-5 in PWDVA
No.20/2022, wherein the Court has already considered the
first ingredient as laid down in D. Velusamy ( supra) whether
the applicant has proved that she had a relationship with non-
applicant No.1 in the nature of marriage and a finding to that
effect was rendered in positive and accordingly after
considering prima facie case, the Court has granted interim
maintenance of 5000/- per month to the applicant/respondent
No.1 and Rs. 2000 to the applicant/respondent No.2 who is
born out of the relationship between the petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.1 Accordingly she submits that unless the final
proceedings are decided and the evidence is led the present
petition may not be entertained. Lastly, she submits that
respondent No.1. conceived pregnancy, however the petitioner
No.1 had forced her to abort first child. Even thereafter, second
3 wp 209.24.odt
time she had conceived the pregnancy out of their relationship
and she declined to abort it and accordingly a female child was
born out of said relationship, therefore she submits that liberal
interpretation is necessary to be given to the definition of
domestic relationship in order to bring all these relationships
within the definition of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act. In view of
the above, it is submitted that there is no merit in the petition
and the same deserves to be rejected.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioners as
well as respondents and after going through the record placed
before this court, admittedly it appears from the complaint filed
under Section 12 of the D.V Act that it was averred in the
complaint filed by the respondent No.1 that both were living as
husband and wife and there was sexual relationship between
the parties. It is further averred that petitioner No.1 had
acknowledged the relationship between the couple as husband
and wife which could be gathered from the complaint.
3 wp 209.24.odt
6. Admittedly, it appears from the complaint that initially
due to sexual intercourse between the petitioner No.1 and the
respondent No.1, she conceived pregnancy. However, it was
aborted at the insistence of the petitioner No.1. Even,
thereafter, the relationship continued and accordingly second
time also she became pregnant and thereafter a female child
was born i.e. respondent No.2. It is averred in the complaint
that the relationship between couple was in the nature of
marriage. As the petitioner No.1 declined to marry with her,
she has lodged the FIR dated 07.05.2022 under Section 376(2)
(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
7. From the above chronology of events prima facie it
appears that there was a relationship between the couple.
Initially, the couple had lived together at Alapalli and Aheri.
During subsistence of the relationship, the respondent
conceived a pregnancy. However, that pregnancy was aborted.
Later on, again she conceived and a female child was born. The
3 wp 209.24.odt
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sarma Vs.
V.K. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 is relevant wherein after
referring to several judgments, the Supreme Court in paragraph
56 has carved out guidelines so as to establish 'relationship in
the nature of marriage' three conditions are relevant in the
present case which are:-
"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 which may vary from case to case,
depending upon the fact situation.
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."
Considering the above, prima facie, it could be gathered that
Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 were having a
3 wp 209.24.odt
relationship in the nature of marriage, as they were in
relationship for long time and out of the said relationship, a
child was born. Further, prima facie the guidelines laid down
in D. Velusamy (supra) are also satisfied. Not only that, even
the trial court while granting interim maintenance has framed
this points which reads as under:-
"10. Now the question arose as to what is the relationship
between the applicant and non-applicant no.1. It is a
matter of record that FIR was filed by the applicant
against the non-applicant no.1 for offence p/u/s 376 of
IPC. Hence, establishing the physical relationship by the
non-applicant no.1 with applicant cannot be ruled out.
Hence, it can be said that the relationship between the
applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.1 is akin to
relationship in the nature of marriage. The meaning of
domestic relationship includes not only the relationship of
marriage but also the relationship in the nature of
marriage to be akin to common law marriage. It is a well
settled that common law marriage required the following
condition to be satisfied although not being formally
marriage:-
a] The couple must hold themselves out to the
society as being akin to spouses.
b] They must be of legal age to marry.
c] They must be otherwise qualified to enter into
legal marriage including being unmarried.
3 wp 209.24.odt
d) They must have voluntarily co-habited and held
themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses
for significant period of time."
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am
not inclined to quash the complaint at this threshold where the
fact has emerged that out of the relationship a female child was
born. I am of considered opinion that evidence is required to
be led by the parties so as to make an informed decision in the
interest of justice. Further, the relationship between petitioner
No.1 and petitioner No.4 though would be decided by the Trial
Court after the parties lead the evidence, however prima facie
the alleged date of marriage which is 06.07.2022, demonstrates
that the relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.1 was first in point of time. Therefore I do not see any force
in the submissions made by the counsel for the Petitioners so
far as Petitioner No 1 is concerned. He further submits that so
far as respondent No.2 i.e. second child born is concerned, at
the relevant time, it was contended in the FIR that the
pregnancy is of six weeks. However, the child was born on
19.10.2023, and DNA report is awaited. Therefore, it is
3 wp 209.24.odt
doubtful whether child born is of petitioner No.1 or not. At
this juncture, this submission needs no consideration as the
main complaint is pending before the Court and the evidence is
yet to be led. However, so far as the other Petitioners are
concerned, that is Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, admittedly there are
no allegations against Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 in the entire
complaint so as to invoke the provisions of the D.V. Act. In this
view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition partly by
quashing and setting aside the complaint in respect of
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. However, I am not inclined to grant any
relief so far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned. Hence, the
following order:
(I) The petition is partly allowed.
(II) The complaint filed by the present
Respondent under Section 12 of the D. V. Act, so far as
petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is dismissed, and so
far as petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 is concerned, is allowed.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioners seeks stay of the present order for the reason that
3 wp 209.24.odt
the main complaint is pending. I am not inclined to grant any
stay to the present order, hence the request is rejected.
( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/01/2026 15:17:56
