Upholding the decision of the trial  court  and the Appellate court that granted maintainence  to a woman unaware of her partner’s  already existing marital  status  continued to remain  in a live-in relationship with him,  Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas of the Chattisgarh HC  held  in his order in a revision petition filed before him  that  their "relationship  was in nature of marriage’’  and hence  the order of the aforesaid courts  merits affirmation.   

Aggrieved by the order of the trial and appellate court the Applicant in the instant case filed a revision petition   under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(‘’BNSS’’) against the judgment dated  2^nd August 2024, where a criminal appeal filed by him was dismissed  by the HC  after due consideration of facts and lack of evidence  in the petition . The court highlighted  that   the woman  had clearly stated   that she was unaware of her partner’s family and on his part the partner had not placed any evidence on record that indicated   that she was cognizant   of his earlier marriage and children . Therefore, this relationship between the parties was ‘’ in the nature of marriage’’

To summarize the facts of the case , Respondent 1(woman), and her partner , the applicant (man) married in 2016and from this wedlock  Respondent 2 ( child)  was born to them.   Subsequently, the woman filed an application before  a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Janakpur (‘’Trial Court’’) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 ( ‘’DV ACT’’)   for grant of maintenance professing that her partner tortured her under the influence of alcohol and used indecent /filthy language. Under such compelling circumstances she had no choice but to file a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act praying for maintainance from the court. 

In his reply to her application the man submitted that he was already married with three children and denied ever marrying her  or having a child with her.  He also stated that documents adduced by the woman were forged and fabricated . It was also his statement that she was an Anganwadi worker before and  therefore used this to    prepare forged and fabricated  records and hence her complaint under Section  12 of the Act was not maintainable and the woman cannot be granted relief under the DV Act.  

After examination of facts and evidence the Trial court  stated that  acts committed by the man were within the ambit of Section 3 of the  domestic violence  Act (DV Act)  and therefore allowed the application. Aggrieved with the order of the Trial court, the man filed an appeal   under DV Act , which was  dismissed  vide impugned order dated 2^nd August 2024  whereupon he filed the instant revision petition. 

The issues for determination  before the Court was firstly,  whether a woman in a live-in relationship was entitled to get maintenance under the DV Act.   Also, the contention of the man that  since he  was already married   person , she cannot claim relief under the DV Act nor does she fall within the ambit of a live-in relationship . With regard to the first issue for determination the court stated that the DV Act was enacted purely to ensure woman’s   right to reside in her matrimonial  home. The Act  also includes a special feature  with special provisions under law which provided  for protection to a woman, to live in a violence free home. 

The second issue for consideration was dealt with by the court stating that the man’s submission deserved to be rejected as he had not adduced any evidence on record to establish that his marriage  and his children through that wedlock  were known to the woman , despite which she was in a relationship with him.  

Taking cognizance of the woman’s statement that she was unaware about her partner’s marital status and his children and noting the Trial court's order and an  affirmation of that order by the Appellate court that stated that the woman’s relationship with the man fell under the category of  a ‘domestic  relationship’  the court stated that the orders of both the courts were not perverse or illegal  in any way and  therefore it   did not warrant  any interference by this court.

 The court noted that in the present case, the woman had clearly stated that she was unaware of her partner’s family  and the man on his part failed to satisfy the court with evidence to suggest that the woman was aware about his marriage and children.   

Reasoning thus, the court stated that the relationship between them therefore was in the nature of marriage. Regarding the issue of maintenance, the court upheld the decision of the Trial court and the Appellate court that had ordered a maintainance amount of Rs 4000 for her and  Rs 2000 for their child per month  to be borne by him . 

Highlighting that the said amount could not be said to be a bonanza or to be kept on a higher pedestal , considering that the earning of the man who worked as a forest guard was a good amount of salary from the State Government. 

Details of case : X v. Y, CRR No. 995 of 2024.

Advocates who appeared in the case:

For the Applicant: Advocate Ramsevak Soni.