Whether
a relationship in the nature of marriage which existed will entitle woman to
claim and receive maintenance under the DV Act, 2005
The
Appellant, who was married to the Respondent in the year 2006, had filed a
petition Under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DV Act') seeking certain reliefs
including damages and maintenance. During the pendency of the aforesaid
application the Appellant filed an application for interim maintenance which
was granted by the learned trial court on 13.02.2008 at the rate of Rs. 2000/-
per month. the Respondent sought a recall of the order dated 13.02.2008 on the
ground that he could subsequently come to know that his marriage with the
Appellant was void on the ground that at the time of the said marriage the
Appellant was already married to one Rohit Kumar Mishra. The learned trial
court by order dated 7.8.2009 rejected the aforesaid application on the ground
that notwithstanding the certificate issued Under special marriage act (first
marriage) would still require to the adduced and only thereafter the
certificate can be held to be valid. The High Court held that the marriage
certificate dated 18.04.2003 was conclusive proof of the first marriage of the
Appellant, which had the effect of rendering the marriage between the Appellant
and the Respondent null and void. Accordingly, it was held that as the
Appellant was not the legally wedded wife of the Respondent she was not
entitled to maintenance granted by the learned courts below.
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deoki Panjhiyara
Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2032-2033 of 2012] had observed:
If
according to the Respondent, the marriage between him and the Appellant was
void on account of the previous marriage of the Appellant, the Respondent ought
to have obtained the necessary declaration from the competent court in view of
the highly contentious questions raised by the Appellant on the aforesaid
score. It is only upon a declaration of nullity or annulment of the marriage
between the parties by a competent court that any consideration of the question
whether the parties had lived in a "relationship in the nature of
marriage" would be justified. In the absence of any valid decree of
nullity or the necessary declaration the court will have to proceed on the
footing that the relationship between the parties is one of marriage and not in
the nature of marriage. We would also like to emphasise that any determination
of the validity of the marriage between the parties could have been made only
by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding by and between the parties
and in compliance with all other requirements of law. Mere production of a
marriage certificate issued Under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
in support of the claimed first marriage of the Appellant, was not sufficient
for any of the courts, including the High Court, to render a complete and
effective decision with regard to the marital status of the parties and that
too in a collateral proceeding for maintenance.
The
Hon’ble Court concluded that “the interference made by the High Court with the
grant of maintenance in favour of the Appellant was not at all justified”.
Prepared by: S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth & Associates
