as Respondent No.1 has left house of the Applicants in the year 2003
itself, there was no domestic relationship in existence within the
meaning of the above referred definitions of ‘Domestic Relationship’,
‘Aggrieved Women’ and ‘Shared Household’. Hence, her application
itself was not maintainable.
8. However, needless to state, that, this very argument itself is
misconceived, because the wording of ‘Aggrieved Person’, as laid down
in Section 2(a) clearly provided that any women, who is or has been in
domestic relationship with the respondent. The definition of ‘Domestic
Relationship’ also means relationship between two persons, who live or
have, at any point of time, lived together in shared household. The
definition of ‘Shared Household’ also means where the person
aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship.
Therefore, none of the definitions contemplate that on the date of filing
such application for the reliefs under Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, the parties should be actually residing or living
together. The very words “has lived together at any point of time”
necessarily cover even the past co-habitation or past living together.
Otherwise, these words would not have appeared in the definition.
Giving any other interpretation would be making these words nugatory.
So till the time the marital tie subsists and the party, at any point of time,
had lived together, the application or proceedings under Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act can survive and are very much
maintainable so as to grant the necessary relief.
In the authority of our own
High Court Bharati N. Vs. Ravi, 2010 (3) BOM Cri. 871, wherein, the
words ‘has been’ or ‘have been’ interpreted, it is categorically held that
the words ‘has been’ and ‘have been’ have been used for the purpose
of showing the past relationship or experience between the concerned
parties. The said words have been used purposefully as the said Act
has been enacted to protect a woman from domestic violence and,
therefore, there cannot be any fitter, which can come in the way by
interpreting the provisions in a manner to mean that unless the
domestic relationship continues on the date of application, the
provisions of the said Act cannot be invoked. It was further held that to
interpret the said provisions so as to mean that only subsisting domestic
relationships are covered would result in terming the provisions of the
Act
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2014
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2014
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2014
Dhananjay Ramkrishna Gaikwad V/s. Sunanda Dhananjay Gaikwad
CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 18TH JANUARY 2016.
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2291
