(1) 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 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 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 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 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 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 illtreating 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. 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.

(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 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 :



(13) Upon perusal of the contents, though the said agreement is shown as a rent agreement, however, the contents of the 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 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.”

(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 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.