PARVEEN TANDON Vs. TANIKA TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.M.C. 264/2021 is directed against the order dated 14.01.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 110/2020 and CRL.M.C. 420/2021 is directed against the order dated 14.01.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 171/2020. Both the petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Facts, in brief, leading to the present petitions are as under:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an application under Section 12 of the DV Act can be filed only by an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person has been defined under Section 2(a) of the DV Act. An aggrieved person has been defined as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with a person and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by that person. He states that the term domestic relationship is defined in Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Domestic relationship has been defined as 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. He states that shared household has been defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act which states that a shared household would mean a household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship with the other person. He states that the respondent herein in her application has admitted that both the parties were married when they met. He states that when the respondent knew that the petitioner was married to somebody else the respondent cannot claim any relief under the DV Act. He states that till the issue of maintainability is not decided, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought not to have directed the petitioner herein to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the application filed by the respondent itself stated that the petitioner is married to somebody else, the summons ought not to have been issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner places strong reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.