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.] Page 8 Sonali SONALI MILIND PATIL Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.09.19 13:48:55 +0530