1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the respondents in M.C. No. 29/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, which is a petition filed under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the PWDV Act”). The parties shall hereinafter be referred to according to their status before the trial court.

2. The essential facts necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition are as follows:

3. The first respondent in this Criminal Revision Petition is the petitioner in M.C. No. 29/2020, pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, which was filed under Section 12(1) of the PWDV Act seeking various reliefs under the said Act. The first respondent therein is allegedly her husband, and the second and third respondents are her in-laws. On receipt of notice in the said petition, the respondents approached this Court by filing Crl. M.C. No. 3390/2020, seeking an order quashing the proceedings in the said M.C. by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court, vide order dated 15.09.2020, dismissed the said Crl. M.C. as not maintainable, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners therein to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and raise all contentions, including the question regarding the maintainability of the petition.

4. Pursuant thereto, the respondents approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing CMP No. 1250(A)/2020, seeking an order of discharge from the proceedings in the said M.C. The learned Magistrate, after considering the said application, found that since the proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act and the reliefs sought therein are civil in nature, there is no provision for discharging the respondents from their liability under Section 12 of the Act.

5. However, the learned Magistrate considered the maintainability of the petition in detail and found that the contention raised by the respondents regarding the absence of a valid marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent is a matter of evidence, which can be decided only by an appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. The learned Magistrate also noticed that the respondents had admitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent had taken place and that they had resided together thereafter for some time. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate arrived at a prima facie satisfaction that there were materials to show the existence of a domestic relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent as defined under Section 2(f) of the PWDV Act. It was also found that the petitioner falls within the definition of an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act and that the respondents, having allegedly lived in the shared household with the petitioner, fall within the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the Act. Consequently, CMP No. 1250(A)/2020 was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred Crl.A.No. 318/2022 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the appeal, dismissed the same. Challenging the said order, the respondents have approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the records.

8. From the contentions raised, it is evident that the primary attempt of the respondents is to establish that there was no valid marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent and, consequently, no domestic relationship existed between the parties for the purpose of the PWDV Act. Although such a contention has been raised, it is significant to note that from the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, which are under challenge in this revision petition, it is clear that the respondents had already admitted the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. Their contention is only that the said marriage is void, allegedly on the ground that it was solemnized without the free consent of the first respondent and was vitiated by fraud.

9. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, the question as to whether the marriage is void or otherwise is a matter that requires adjudication by an appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. At this stage, this Court is only concerned with the existence of prima facie materials to proceed with the petition under Section 12(1) of the PWDV Act. It is also relevant to note that, from the impugned judgment of the appellate court, it is evident that, in the objection filed by the respondents, they themselves had stated that after the marriage, the petitioner attempted to cause self-harm at the residence of the first respondent by toppling a heavy almirah and attempted to jump from the terrace. The said statement itself prima facie indicates that, after the marriage, the petitioner was taken to the matrimonial home and she resided there. Therefore, the finding of the learned Magistrate as well as the appellate court that there are prima facie materials to show the existence of a domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondents cannot be found fault with at this stage.

10. It is also necessary to bear in mind that a legally valid marriage is not always a prerequisite for seeking relief under the PWDV Act. The definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act makes it clear that any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges that she has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent would fall within the ambit of an aggrieved person. Similarly, Section 2(f) of the PWDV Act defines “domestic relationship” as 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. Thus, the expression “domestic relationship” has a wider scope than a mere marital relationship. Even a relationship in the nature of marriage would entitle a woman to claim the status of an aggrieved person if she alleges that she has been subjected to domestic violence.

11. In the present case, the petitioner has a specific case that her marriage with the first respondent was solemnized on 09.06.2019, and a marriage certificate was also produced in support of the same. However, during the hearing of this revision petition, the respondents attempted to establish that the petitioner had been married to another person before 09.06.2019, the alleged date of marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. In support of the said contention, the respondents produced a copy of an insurance certificate purportedly issued by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation in favour of the petitioner.

12. A perusal of the said document shows that it is dated 08.04.2016 and that, in the column relating to the status of the petitioner, the word “married” is mentioned. According to the respondents, the said entry establishes that the petitioner was already married before her alleged marriage with the first respondent. However, while considering the said contention, it is to be noted that the document produced is not fully legible. Further, the evidentiary value of the said document, the genuineness of the entries contained therein, and the circumstances under which the entries were made are matters that can be considered only during the trial of the original M.C. In any event, as already observed, a legally valid marriage is not a sine qua non for maintaining a petition under Section 12(1) of the PWDV Act. A relationship in the nature of marriage is sufficient to establish a domestic relationship within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act.

13. Further, from the materials available on record, it is evident that several instances of domestic violence have been alleged against the respondents by the petitioner. The truth or otherwise of those allegations can be determined only after a full-fledged trial before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has already arrived at a finding that there are prima facie materials to proceed with the M.C., and the appellate court has also affirmed the said finding. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, I find no illegality, impropriety, or irregularity in the orders under challenge warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.