Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. NO. 218/DV/2022
Karuna V/s. Dhananjay.
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION AT (Exh.-14)
The respondent has filed the present application for dismissal
of proceeding. According to the respondent he has not been in any
domestic relationship with the applicant at any point of time. He never
lived together in shared household and there are no relations with
applicant in the nature of marriage. Therefore, application deserved to be
dismissed. According to him in the year 2001, he married with Smt.
Rajshri Munde. The respondent from the wedlock of Rajshri have three
daughters/children. There is no marriage between the applicant and the
respondent.
2. Further, it is contended that, the applicant suppressed the
material facts from the court. She has falsely stated that, she married with
the respondent on 09/01/1998
. The applicant is Director of three
companies but she has falsely stated her occupation, as social worker. She
also filed false affidavit regarding her income. The applicant has
suppressed that, she is politician. She further suppressed that, she got
immovable property, at Parli, Dist. Beed, for the purpose of contesting
election against said respondent. The applicant also suppressed the fact of
her income. She has suppressed that, in her application for passport she
mentioned herself, as unmarried. The applicant also suppressed the fact of
filing application seeking monetary compensation before Hon’ble Bombay
High Court. Thus, according to the respondent there is no domestic
relations with the applicant and as she has suppressed the material facts
from the court, therefore, it is prayed that, the complaint be dismissed, as
it is not maintainable.
3. The applicant has resisted the application by filing her say at
(Exh.-15). The applicant has denied all the contention of the respondent
-- 1 of 7 --
~2~
C. C. NO. 218/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW EXH.-14
in toto. According to her, she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and
their marriage solemnized, as per Hindu Marriage Act. It is contended
that, in the Insurance Policy name of the applicant shown, as wife of the
respondent. The said Insurance Policy discloses by the applicant in the
affidavit filed for Assembly Election
, before Election Commission. It is
further contended that, in HDFC Bank, Santacruz Branch, there is joint
account of the applicant and the respondent. On 18/07/2017 the
respondent has executed the Will. Likewise, on 14/09/2016 the
respondent executed the concent letter, wherein he has admitted that, he
married with the applicant on 09/01/2098.
4. It is further contended that, the respondent has clarified second
marriage has been done by him on the pressure of his parents. The
respondent in the said consent letter admitted that, he will always with
children Sishiva and Shivani and the applicant. It is further contended
that, on 27/11/2003 the agreement for sale the name of the applicant has
been shown as Karuna Dhananjay Munde. Driving licence, copy of
passport, Voter identity card issued by Election Commission and Aadhar
Card shows that, the applicant is wife of the respondent. Lastly, it is
contended that, the applicant is legally wedded wife of the respondent.
She has not suppressed any material fact, as alleged. Therefore,
application deserved to be rejected.
5. Heard Ld. Advocate Shri Shardul Singh for the respondent and
Ld. Advocate Shri Aragade for the applicant.
6. The record shows that, the applicant has filed the applicant
under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent.
The respondent has filed his preliminary say to the main petition.
Thereafter, on 21/10/2024 the respondent has filed the present
application.
-- 2 of 7 --
~3~
C. C. NO. 218/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW EXH.-14
7. Ld. Advocate Shri Shardul Singh for the respondent has
submits that, there is no domestic relations in the nature of marriage
between the applicant and the respondent. She is not a legally wedded
wife of the respondent and her status is nothing but
Concubine. The
respondent has performed marriage with Rajshri and out of said wedlock
with Rajshri the respondent have three children. He further drawn my
attention to copies of documents alongwith (Exh.-17) and submits that, in
various affidavits, while contesting election to the Election Commission
the respondent has referred Rajshri, as his wife. He has never referred
applicant, as his wife in the said affidavits. He further submits that, the
applicant while applying for the passport to the Competent Authority in
the application, she has mentioned her name as Karuna Sharma and in the
column of her marritial status she has mentioned Not Applicable.
Therefore, domestic relations in the nature of marriage are at all not made
out in the present proceeding and the respondent is not at all the
respondent as contemplated in the Domestic Violence Act. There is no
relationship between him and the applicant. Therefore, the proceeding
deserved to be dismissed.
8. In support of his arguments he relied on the Indra Sarma V/s.
V.K.V.Sarma (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 755, wherein Hon’ble Apex
Court held that, a live in relationship are not relationship in the nature of
marriage. On the same point Ld. Advocate also relied on the case of Tulsa
V/s. Durghatiya reported in 2008 (4) SCC 520.
9. Per contra Ld. Advocate Shri Argade for the applicant
submitted that, the applicant is legally wedded wife of the respondent. He
drawn my attention to the copies of Insurance Policies and particularly the
Will dated 18/07/2017, wherein the respondent has referred the applicant
as his first wife and Rajshri Dhananjay Munde is his second wife. Ld.
-- 3 of 7 --
~4~
C. C. NO. 218/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW EXH.-14
Advocate Shri Argade further drawn my attention to the letter executed by
the respondent, wherein the respondent mentioned that, he married with
the applicant on 09/01/1998 and under pressure of parents he has
performed second marriage, but he will not give divorce to the applicant
and he will always with the applicant and their children. Ld. Advocate
further submits that, in the registered Agreement of Sale name of the
applicant has been shown as a wife of the respondent. Even documents
like driving licence, identity card issued by Election Commission, wherein
name of the applicant has been mentioned, as Karuna Dhananjay Munde.
Even in the birth certificate of Daughter Shivani name of respondent has
been shown, as her father and the applicant is her mother.
10. Therefore, documents particularly will and letter executed by
the respondent shows that, he has admitted the applicant is his wife.
Therefore, application is not at all tenable. He further submits that,
nothing has been suppressed by the applicant, which is material to the
present case. Hence, application be rejected.
11. Admittedly, clause ‘f’ of section 2 of Domestic Violence Act
provides the definition of “domestic relationship” which reads as under,
“domestic relationship means 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”;
12. clause 2 ‘q’ give definition of the respondent as under,
“respondent” means “any adult male person, who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the
aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
-- 4 of 7 --
~5~
C. C. NO. 218/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW EXH.-14
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the
nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the
husband or the male partner”.
13. In case of Indra Sarma (above supra) Hon’ble Apex Court laid
down that, relationship in the nature of marriage referred in the section
means and construed as legal marriage. By keeping in my mind above
provision and ratio laid down in above cases, I would like to discuss the
documents placed on record. The respondent has relied on documents
which are alongwith (Exh.-17). He has filed on record copies of various
affidavits filed before Election Commission. Admittedly, in the said
affidavits reference of applicant as wife of the respondent is not appeared.
The Ld. Advocate strongly relied on the applicant’s application for
passport, wherein the applicant has not referred the name of the
respondent, as her husband. The respondent relied on the marriage
certificate which shows that, Competent Authority has registered marriage
of the respondent with Rajshri, which has been taken place in the year
2001, at Pune.
14. The applicant relied on the copies of Insurance Policy wherein
the name of the applicant, has shown as wife of the respondent. Now I
would like to state here that, the applicant relied on the Will copy which is
alongwith (Exh.-17) wherein the respondent has referred the applicant is
his first wife and Rajshri Dhananjay Munde is his second wife. Concent
letter shows that, the respondent has admitted that, he has performed
marriage with the applicant on 09/01/1998, as per Vedic Custom and
Rites. He further admitted that, he has performed second marriage under
the pressure of his parents, but he will not give divorce to the applicant.
The applicant also filed on record copies of birth certificate of her children,
wherein name of the respondent is referred, as their father. It is to be
-- 5 of 7 --
~6~
C. C. NO. 218/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW EXH.-14
noted that, the marriage certificate of the respondent with Rajshri is on
record, which shows that, the marriage solemnized on 21/03/2001, at
Pune. But it appears that, the said marriage has been registered with the
Competent Authority at Parli on 23/03/2023 during the pendency of
present proceeding.
15. The documents relied by the applicant shows that, she has been
referred, as a wife of the respondent. Now I would like to state here that,
the documents executed by the respondent are very much important
,
wherein the respondent has admitted that, he has performed marriage
with the applicant, but due to family pressure he performed marriage with
Rajshri. Further, the consent letter executed by the respondent is also
important wherein he has referred the applicant, as his first wife and
Rajshri is his second wife.
16. Therefore, I am in opinion that, who is legally wedded wife of
the respondent needs to be decided and for that purpose there should be
evidence of both sides must be on record. Therefore, merely relied on the
rival contention, particularly copies of Will and Consent letter executed
the respondent are against the version of the respondent and merely
relied on the documents placed on record it is unsafe to hold, who is
legally wedded wife of the respondent. In such circumstances, I am in
opinion that, the respondent has failed to make out his case for rejection
of the application at threshold.
17. So far as the contention of respondent that, the applicant has
suppressed the material facts, is concerned whether the facts alleged to
have been suppressed by the applicant is matter of evidence. There should
be evidence on record in order to hold that, the applicant has suppressed
the material facts from the court. At this initial stage, it cannot held that,
the said facts are material to the present proceeding. Hence, merely relied
-- 6 of 7 --
~7~
C. C. NO. 218/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW EXH.-14
on the contention it cannot be held that, at this stage the applicant has
suppressed the material facts.
18. In order to decide the relationship between the applicant and
the respondent there should be evidence on the record. The proceeding
cannot be rejected at threshold. Hence, I do not find any substance in the
application, hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 The application is rejected.
Mumbai.
Date : 29/04/2024.
SRD.
Sd/-
Metropolitan Magistrate,
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated on :- 29/04/2024.
Transcribed on :- 30/04/2024.
Checked on :- 04/05/2024.
Signed on :- 04/05/2024.
SRD
-- 7 of 7 --