1 CGHC010161632026 2026:CGHC:41321 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 554 of 2026 Geeta Singh W/o Shri Ugranarayan Singh Aged About 30 Years (Presently 38 years) R/o Village Ramgarh, Chowki Ramgarh, Police Station Sonhat, District Korea C.G. Presently Resided- At Village Mauhapara Surajpur Police Station Tahsil And District Surajpur (CG) ... Applicant. Versus Ugranarayan Singh S/o Shri Sani Kumar Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Ungyav, Chowki Ramgarh Police Station Sonhat District Korea C.G. Presently Resided At Village Mauhapara Surajpur Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur (CG) ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 23/09/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur, in Criminal Appeal No.17/2024, whereby the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, District Surajpur, in Misc. Criminal Case No.22/2018, rejecting the Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20051, has been upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the respondent/non- applicant is the son of Late Talkeshwar Singh @ Sunny Kumar Singh, who is the real maternal uncle (Mama) of the applicant, the applicant has stated in her deposition that she and the respondent performed marriage in a temple. Thereafter, they resided together in a live-in relationship. As such, their relationship is domestic relationship and falls within the scope of Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005. Therefore, even if the applicant has admitted in her cross-examination that the respondent/non-applicant is a married person, despite that, the applicant is entitled to get relief under Section 12 of the Act, 2005. However, both the Courts below have committed illegality in rejecting the application filed by the applicant. Hence, he prays that the revision may be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court may be set aside and relief under the Act, 2005, be granted to the applicant. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the relationship of applicant and respondent not only comes within the degrees of prohibited relationship, rather the applicant herself has admitted that the marriage of the non-applicant was solemnized with Anant Kumari in the year 2000 and they have two children, which is well within the knowledge of the applicant due to close relation between them. Despite that, the applicant started residing with the non-applicant, whereas, during the subsistence of the first legal marriage, a second marriage is not permissible. Therefore, the relationship between the applicant and the respondent does not fall within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005. Hence, the concurrent 1 Hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2005” 3 findings recorded by both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are just and proper and this revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to note the relevant definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act, 2005, which read as under:- "2. Definitions-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) aggrieved person means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent; (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; (q) respondent means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner." 7. A perusal of the above quoted definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act, 2005, makes it clear that an “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges that she has been subjected to domestic violence. Such an aggrieved person 4 is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005, seeking the reliefs provided under the said Act. 8. The scope and ambit of the expression “domestic relationship” occurring in Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma , (2013) 15 SCC 755 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after examining the scheme of the Act, observed that the expression “domestic relationship” is specifically defined in Section 2(f) and includes, inter alia, 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 marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage. The Court further laid down that, for determining whether a live-in relationship falls within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage”, the nature and circumstances of the relationship have to be examined with reference to the relevant factors indicated therein. Thus, the existence of a domestic relationship within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005, is a foundational requirement for invoking the remedies provided under the Act. 9. In the present case, the applicant, Geeta Singh, has been examined as AW-1. She has admitted in paragraph 11 of her cross-examination that Late Khilawan Singh is her maternal grandfather (Nana) and Talkeshwar Singh @ Sunny Kumar Singh is the real elder brother of her mother, Anna Kunwar. Thus, undisputedly, the mother of the applicant and the father of the respondent are the daughter and son, respectively, of Late Khilawan Singh, and the applicant is the daughter of the real aunt (Bua) of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is already a married person and his first legally wedded wife, Anant Kunwar, is still alive. Their marriage was 5 solemnized in the year 2000 and two children were born out of their wedlock. In such circumstances, having regard to such a close relationship, it cannot be denied that the applicant was well aware of the existence of the first marriage of the respondent. 10. The aforesaid evidence of applicant shows that, the applicant was not a woman who entered into the relationship with the respondent under the belief that he was a legally available unmarried man. On the contrary, the material on record indicates that she was aware of the respondent's subsisting marriage. In such circumstances, the alleged relationship cannot be treated as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” so as to constitute a “domestic relationship” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005. Once the foundational requirement of a “domestic relationship” is not established, the applicant cannot claim the status of an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act, 2005, against the respondent on the basis of the alleged relationship. 11. Now, having regard to the actual relationship between the parties, it would be apposite to refer to Section 3(g) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which defines the expression “degrees of prohibited relationship”. As noticed herein-above, the applicant and the respondent are related to each other as maternal cousin. In view of the such relationship between the parties, Section 3(g) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which contemplates the degrees of prohibited relationship, assumes relevance and is reproduced hereunder:- “(g) ‘degrees of prohibited relationship’—two persons are said to be within the ‘degrees of prohibited relationship’— (i)if one is a lineal ascendant of the other; or 6 (ii)if one was the wife or husband of a lineal ascendant or descendant of the other; or (iii) if one was the wife of the brother or of the father’s or mother’s brother or of the grandfather’s or grandmother’s brother of the other; or (iv) if the two are brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, or children of brother and sister or of two brothers or of two sisters.” 12. It would also be relevant to notice Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which lays down the conditions which are required to be fulfilled for a valid Hindu marriage. The said provision reads as under:- “5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.—A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:— (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party— (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity; (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage; (iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; 7 (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two.” 13. Bare perusal of Section 3(g)(iv) and Section 5(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act demonstrates that marriage between children of a brother and sister is prohibited and such prohibited marriage is illegal in view of Section 5(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As it has not been proved by the applicant that there is any custom or usage governing the parties which permits marriage between the two. Therefore, even if the applicant and the respondent have performed marriage in a temple or otherwise, their marriage is not legally valid. 14. In view of the aforesaid legal provisions and the evidence available on record, the relationship between the applicant and the respondent, in the present case, cannot be termed as a “domestic relationship” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As such, the application preferred by the applicant under Section 12 of the Act, 2005, is not even maintainable against the respondent, who does not fall within the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the Act, 2005. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim any relief under Section 12 of the Act, 2005. 15. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are just and proper and require no interference by this Court. 16. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Ajay Judge