NUTAN SATISH KATARIAversusSATISH CHAMPALAL KATARIA AND ANR

                                                      8-WP-179-2017.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.179 OF 2017


Nutan Satish Kataria                                  …Petitioner
      Versus
Satish Champalal Kataria & Anr.                       …Respondents


Ms. Rachana Harpale h/f. Mr. N. P. Deshpande, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Meghna Ashok Gowalani, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for Respondent No.2-State.


                       CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :     18th SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-


1.       Heard Ms. Harpale, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner,    Ms.   Gowalani,   learned   Counsel    appearing     for

Respondent No.1 and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for

Respondent No.2-State.



2.       By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of

the order dated 8th December 2016 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal No.545 of

2014. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions




                                 Page 1
Sonali
                                                      8-WP-179-2017.DOC




Judge set aside the order dated 10th September 2014 passed in

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2231 of 2008 by the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune dismissing the said

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2231 of 2008 on the

ground that there is no domestic relationship between the

Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.1 is

maintaining the Petitioner.



3.       However, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states

that the said finding is totally perverse as admittedly, the Petitioner

and the Respondent No.1 were in a domestic relationship and in

fact, there are two children out of the said relationship, one is born

on 7th March 2007 and another is born on 1st April 2008.



4.       Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, on

instructions, states that in fact, the Petitioner is staying with the

Respondent No.1.



5.       However, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on

instructions of the Petitioner, who is personally present in Court




                                 Page 2
Sonali
                                                     8-WP-179-2017.DOC




states that the Petitioner is not staying with the Respondent No.1

and the Respondent No.1 is not maintaining the Petitioner.



6.       In view of the above contentions and the impugned order

passed by the learned Appellate Court, it is necessary to set out the

definition of “domestic relationship” as defined under Section 2(f)

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(“D.V. Act”), which reads as under:



            “2(f)    “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;”

         Thus, domestic relationship inter alia means a relationship

between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived

together in a shared household.



7.       A “shared household” is defined by Section 2(s), which is as

under:




                                 Page 3
Sonali
                                                     8-WP-179-2017.DOC




            “2(s) “shared household” means a household
            where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage
            has lived in a domestic relationship either singly
            or along with the respondent and includes such a
            household whether owned or tenanted either
            jointly by the aggrieved person and the
            respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of
            them in respect of which either the aggrieved
            person or the respondent or both jointly or singly
            have any right, title, interest or equity and
            includes such a household which may belong to
            the joint family of which the respondent is a
            member, irrespective of whether the respondent
            or the aggrieved person has any right, title or
            interest in the shared household;”

         Thus, “shared household” means a household where the

person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic

relationship either singly or along with the respondent.



8.       In fact, as per the contention of learned Counsel appearing

for the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner is staying with the

Respondent No.1. The said submissions are made on instructions

of the Respondent No.1, who is personally present in the Court.

Thus, even in view of the contention raised by the Respondent

No.1, the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are staying in a shared

household and has domestic relationship.




                                 Page 4
Sonali
                                                        8-WP-179-2017.DOC




9.       In any case, admittedly, the Petitioner and the Respondent

No.2 have two children. It is required to be noted that the

domestic relationship and a shared household both contemplate

that the parties are living together or at any point of time lived

together. Thus, in any case, it is clear that the parties are in

domestic relationship.



10.      Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D. Velusamy vs. D.

Patchaiammal1 and more particularly, on paragraph Nos.19, 20,

21, 31 and 32. The said paragraph Nos.19, 20, 21, 31 and 32 are

as under:



             “19. Having noted the relevant provisions in the
             Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
             2005, we may point out that the expression
             “domestic relationship” includes not only the
             relationship of marriage but also a relationship
             “in the nature of marriage”. The question,
             therefore, arises as to what is the meaning of the
             expression “a relationship in the nature of
             marriage”. Unfortunately, this expression has not
             been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct
             decision of this Court on the interpretation of this
             expression we think it necessary to interpret it
             because a large number of cases will be coming


1        (2010) 10 SCC 469




                                   Page 5
Sonali
                                                   8-WP-179-2017.DOC




         up before the courts in our country on this point,
         and hence an authoritative decision is required.

         20. In our opinion Parliament by the aforesaid
         Act has drawn a distinction between the
         relationship of marriage and a relationship in the
         nature of marriage, and has provided that in
         either case the person who enters into either
         relationship is entitled to the benefit of the Act.

         21. It seems to us that in the aforesaid Act of
         2005 Parliament has taken notice of a new social
         phenomenon which has emerged in our country
         known as live-in relationship. This new
         relationship is still rare in our country, and is
         sometimes found in big urban cities in India, but
         it is very common in North America and Europe.
         It has been commented upon by this Court in S.
         Khushboo v. Kanniammal[(2010) 5 SCC 600 :
         (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1299] (vide para 31).”

         “31. In our opinion a “relationship in the nature
         of marriage” is akin to a common law marriage.
         Common law marriages require that although not
         being formally married:

         (a) The couple must hold themselves out to
         society as being akin to spouses.

         (b) They must be of legal age to marry.

         (c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into
         a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

         (d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and
         held themselves out to the world as being akin to
         spouses for a significant period of time.




                              Page 6
Sonali
                                                        8-WP-179-2017.DOC




            (See “Common Law Marriage” in Wikipedia on
            Google.)

            In our opinion a “relationship in the nature of
            marriage” under the 2005 Act must also fulfil the
            above requirements, and in addition the parties
            must have lived together in a “shared household”
            as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely
            spending weekends together or a one night stand
            would not make it a “domestic relationship”.

            32. In our opinion not all live-in relationships will
            amount to a relationship in the nature of
            marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To
            get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us
            above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved
            by evidence. If a man has a “keep” whom he
            maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual
            purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our
            opinion, be a relationship in the nature of
            marriage.”

         Thus, even examining the facts of this case on the

touchstone of the above parameters in D. Velusamy (supra), it is

clear that the parties are in a domestic relationship.



11.      Accordingly, the order dated 8th December 2016 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal

No.545 of 2014 is quashed and set aside.




                                  Page 7
Sonali
                                                                   8-WP-179-2017.DOC




            12.      Thus, resultantly the order dated 10th September 2014

            passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3,

            Pune, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2231 of 2008 is

            restored.



            13.      The Respondent No.1 to comply with the order passed by the

            learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, within a period of

            eight weeks from today.



            14.      The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.




                                                        [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]


       Digitally
       signed by
       SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
       2026.09.19
       13:48:55
       +0530




                                              Page 8
            Sonali