What Allahabad High Court held on Domestic Violence complaint filed after marriage is declared void

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a woman’s application for relief under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act would be maintainable even after her marriage is subsequently declared null and void [Shashank Pandey And 2 Others]..Justice Subhash Vidyarthi reasoned in this case that since the woman and her former husband had been living together before the nullification of their marriage, their relationship was in the nature of marriage, and thus she would meet the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ under the DV Act. “I am of the considered view that any woman, who has in the past lived in a domestic relation with the respondent [man], is included in the definition of an aggrieved person and domestic relation includes a relationship by marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage,” the Court said..The Court passed the ruling on a petition moved by a man challenging the dismissal of his application for rejection of his former wife’s domestic violence complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, on the ground that their marriage had been declared null and void.The couple had married in 2018. A year later, the husband moved the family court for divorce, which was granted ex parte in 2021. The marriage was declared null and void for the reason that the husband and wife were sapindas and thus their marriage was prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act. It was also found that the man’s consent for marriage was obtained by concealing the fact that the woman had a mental health condition..While the maintenance suit filed by the woman under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 2019 was dismissed last year on the ground that the marriage had been declared null and void, the civil judge in 2022 had refused to reject the DV Act complaint filed by her in 2021.Challenging the decision, counsel representing the man cited a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to contend that provisions of the DV Act cannot be invoked once the domestic relationship ceases..After hearing the arguments, Justice Vidyarthi looked into the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ and ‘domestic relationship’ under the DV Act.It noted that any woman who has in the past lived in a domestic relation with a man, is included in the definition of an 'aggrieved person' and the domestic relation includes a relationship by marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage. The Court declined to follow the interpretation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision, commenting that the High Court had omitted to notice that the Hindi version of the DV Act makes it clear that an aggrieved person would include a woman who has lived in the past in a domestic relationship with the man. .In the present case, the Court noted that the marriage was not under dispute and that the couple had been living in a domestic relationship before separation.“They had been related by marriage till the marriage was declared to be null and void. Even though the marriage has subsequently been declared to be null and void, when the relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 subsisted, it was a relationship in the nature of marriage,” it added.Thus, the Court concluded that the woman was an 'aggrieved person' under the DV Act and has a right to present an application for relief before the magistrate. “I find no force in the preliminary objection raised by the applicant against maintainability of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act. The impugned order in no way defeats the ends of justice and there is no merit in the application under Section 482 filed by the applicant,” it said, while dismissing the man’s petition. .Advocates Shailendra Singh Rajawat and Saurabh Singh represented the petitioner.Advocate Anurag Verma represented the State..[Read Judgment]