High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 52 CRA 379-2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD52 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2023MIR AZAM ALI S/O MIR BASITH ALIVERSUSANJUM SULTANA D/O SAYYAD NURUL BASITH…Mr. Ajeet B. Kasliwal – Advocate for ApplicantMr. R.A. Shinde & Mr. S.B. Rajade – Advocates for sole Respondent…CORAM: SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.DATE: 08.09.2025O R D E R : 1.Challenge is raised to the order passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Aurangabad, confirming the order of the JudicialMagistrate First Class, Aurangabad, allowing the application presented byrespondent under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the D.V. Act, 2005’for short). The respondent had filed an application under Section 12 ofthe D.V. Act, 2005 seeking reliefs under Sections 18(a), 19(f), 20 and 22thereof.2.The marriage of the present respondent and the applicant wassolemnized in the year 1989. The present applicant allegedly subjectedthe respondent to domestic violence, as a result the respondent wasforced to leave the matrimonial house. Out of the said wedlock, a sonnamely, Hasham Ali is born. The respondent was further subjected to 2 52 CRA 379-2023.odtdomestic violence. As such, prayed to grant reliefs as sought in theapplication. The parties to the proceeding are referred by their status inthe proceedings before the Magistrate.3.While resisting the application, the respondent presented say,admitting the marriage with the applicant and the birth of the son.However, it was contended that in the year 1997, a customary divorcehad taken place between the parties. It was further submitted that, eventhereafter, in the year 2013, a settlement was arrived at between theparties in the presence of the witnesses. Pursuant to the said settlement,certain amount was paid by way of cheque towards final settlement. Itwas further submitted that the applicant is taking care of the son, who ispursuing studies. In view of the customary divorce, the maritalrelationship between the parties has come to an end. These material factshave been suppressed by the applicant. As such, the respondent prayedfor rejecting the application.4.The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, considering thepleadings, material on record and the legal position, upheld theentitlement of the applicant and awarded maintenance under Section20(3) of the D.V. Act, 2005, and further directed the applicant not toindulge in domestic violence. However, other reliefs prayed by theapplicant are rejected by the Magistrate. 3 52 CRA 379-2023.odt5.Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appealbefore the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which is dismissedconfirming the order passed by the Magistrate. In the aforesaid backdrop,the present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the originalrespondent.6.Mr. Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner,vehemently submitted that the application presented by the respondent isliable to be dismissed on account of suppression of the fact that a divorcehad already taken place between the parties, which was not disclosedwhile presenting the application. It is further contention of the learnedCounsel for the petitioner that, in the absence of domestic relationshipbetween the parties, there was no occasion for the Courts below toentertain the application presented by the applicant. Learned Counsel forthe applicant further submitted that, the certificate maintained by theBoard is a public document and ought to have been taken intoconsideration by the Courts below, in the wake of the provisions ofSection 74 of the Evidence Act and the admissibility of the said documentwas required to be considered by the Courts below. Learned Counsel forthe petitioner, in support of submissions, has placed reliance on thefollowing judgments of this Court :(a)Sunil Gangadhar Kadam Vs. Jayashri Sunil Kadam reported in AIR ONLINE 2023 BOM 368(b)Murlidhar Rambhau Bodkhe Vs. Sangita Murlidhar
Legal Reasoning
4 52 CRA 379-2023.odtBodkhe reported in 2023 ALL MR (Cri) 2098(c)Smt. Sadhana Hemant Walwatkar Vs. Hemant Shalikramji Walwatkar reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 2299(d)Anita Anand Tambe Vs. Shri. Anand Eknath Tambe reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 3930(e)B. Balachandra Rao and Anr. Vs. Ms. Sanjna Navneet Rao and Ors., reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 4498(f)Kishor Shrirampant Kale Vs. Sou. Shalini Kishor Kale and Ors., reported in 2010 (4) AIR Bom R 4977.Per contra, Mr. Rahul A. Shinde, learned Counsel for therespondent, supported the order under challenge by submitting that thecontentions raised by the petitioner do not deserve any consideration forthe reason that the relationship between the litigating parties continuesto subsist. It was further submitted that owing to the domestic violenceon the part of the respondent, resulted in driving the respondent out ofthe matrimonial house, constitutes a continuous cause. Even the pastevent of domestic violence unequivocally entails the applicant to claimreliefs under the provisions of the Act, 2005.8.Learned Counsel for the respondent also contended that, had therebeen a divorce in the year 1997, there would not have any occasion forexecuting an agreement of divorce in the year 2013. As such, the plea ofdivorce does not warrant any consideration. In support of submissions,placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ahsanullah @ 5 52 CRA 379-2023.odtJaved Khan Vs. Shahana Parvin @ Brijis reported in 2023 ALL MR (Cri)2576.9.Having considered the submissions of both the sides and perusedthe documents placed on record, it is a matter of record that the marriagebetween the litigating parties was solemnized in the year 1989, and outof the said wedlock, a son is born. There is no dispute in that regard.10.The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that thereexist no domestic relationship between the parties in view of thecertificate issued by the Board, is a public document, does not deserveconsideration as the applicant herein has not cross–examined the presentrespondent so as to confront with the said certificate. Inasmuch as theplea of a customary divorce in the year 1997 and the subsequentagreement for divorce in the year 2013 are inconsistent pleas put forth bythe applicant appears to be an attempt to claim that there is no existingdomestic relationship between the litigating parties.11.Learned Counsel for the respondent is justified in submitting thathad there been divorce in the year 1997, there would have been nonecessity for any reason or justification to execute a further agreementfor divorce in the year 2013. Thus, the Courts below have rightly takeninto account the existence of a domestic relationship between thelitigating parties, resultantly upheld the entitlement of the respondent for 6 52 CRA 379-2023.odtmaintenance under the provisions of the D.V. Act, 2005. It is evident thatthe enactment is a piece of beneficial legislation. The object of the Act isto confer protection upon an aggrieved person in the event of domesticviolence. In the present case, in view of the admission on behalf of theapplicant regarding existence of the relationship, coupled with the failureto establish severance between the parties, the findings recorded by theCourts below cannot be faulted.12.Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner on the judgments (supra) is concerned, the same is of noassistance to the petitioner, since the respondent has unequivocallyestablished that the respondent, though having entered into a subsequentmarriage, has refused to maintain the applicant. This entitles theapplicant to claim reliefs under the relevant provisions of the D.V. Act,2005. On the contrary, reliance placed by the learned Counsel for therespondent on the judgment of Ahsanullah @ Javed Khan Vs. ShahanaParvin @ Brijis (supra) reinforces the legal position that unless the orderis perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable, the exercise of revisionaljurisdiction should be minimal, and there would be no occasion tointerfere with the concurrent findings of fact. It was further contended onbehalf of the respondent that, even assuming that the parties weredivorced, a divorced woman cannot be denied the right to initiateproceedings under Section 12 and claiming monetary reliefs under 7 52 CRA 379-2023.odtSection 20 of the D.V. Act, 2005. In my considered view, therefore, thesubmissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner does not warrantconsideration.13.Undoubtedly, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005, entitles an aggrievedperson to seek reliefs in respect of domestic violence. Reference to theobservations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Juveria AbdulMajid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansuri and Anr., 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2912(S.C.), particularly paragraph 30 thereof :“30. An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decreeof divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from theoffence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrievedperson is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includingmonetary relief under Section 20, child custody under Section 21,compensation under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order underSection 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”Thus, an act of domestic violence once committed, will not denythe benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the D.V. Act,including monetary relief under Section 20, of the D.V. Act. In view of thesettled legal position, the contentions of the husband does not warrantany consideration.14.Thus, in the light of reasons recorded herein above the fact that,the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of the fact renderedby the Courts below while allowing the application presented by the
Decision
8 52 CRA 379-2023.odtrespondent. The orders upholding entitlement of applicant–wife to claimrelief under Section 20 (3) of the D.V. Act, 2005 to receive maintenance isin conformity with the provisions of the D.V. Act, 2005.15.Resultantly, the application is liable to be dismissed and the same isaccordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ SACHIN S. DESHMUKH ] JUDGEPooja Kale/