DHUM SINGH PUNDIR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very peculiar situation, which has arisen for consideration in the present criminal revision, is that as per the admitted factual backdrop, it is not in dispute that the marriage between revisionist and respondent no. 2 stood solemnized as back on 8/12/1997. It is further not in dispute that immediately after about 11 days of marriage only, i.e. on 16/12/1997, the respondent no. 2 is said to have left the matrimonial home and had gone along with her friends. It is admitted that ever since 1997, when she has left the matrimonial home there is not even a single effort has been made by the respondent to either get the marriage dissolved or to revive the matrimonial relationship by initiating an appropriate proceedings or to claim a maintenance under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. within a reasonable time, rather she had kept silent and initiated no proceedings. Consequently, the fact which has come on record is that the revisionist later on got married with one Baisakhi Devi and started living as a husband and wife. The only ground, which has been agitated by the respondent no. 2, is that since she was married in 1997 and there is no decree of divorce, hence, she still acquires and enjoys the status of being that of a wife and she would be entitled for the grant of maintenance and other benefits as contemplated under Sec. 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005.

(2.) What is surprising and a fact on record, here is that after leaving the matrimonial home way back may be in 1997, in accordance with the revisionist and as per the respondent no. 2 herself, she contends that it was in the year 2002 that according to her she was forced to leave the matrimonial home, but the fact remains that for last about either 14 years according to the respondent or for last 21 years in accordance with the revisionist, there had not been even an isolated effort ever made by the respondent no. 2 to discharge her matrimonial obligations or to make any effort to revive the matrimonial relationship till for the first time when only on 24/3/2017, she had moved an application under the Domestic Violence Act for grant of maintenance and other benefits as contemplated in the relief clause of the application filed by respondent under Sec. 12, 17 to 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, which is quoted hereunder:

(3.) The said application as preferred by the respondent no. 2 was opposed by the revisionist contending thereof that ever since 1997, i.e. since the time of the marriage and till the time of filing of the application for the first in 2017, under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, there had been no relationship as such of husband and wife and, hence, it cannot be perceived that a lady, who has voluntarily left the matrimonial home on her own volition, could be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, by filing the same for the first time in 2017, i.e. almost after 21 years, since leaving the matrimonial home, more particularly, when the documents on record or even as per the pleading of respondent no. 2 there happen to be not even an isolated effort made by the respondent to revive the matrimonial relationship and to discharge the matrimonial obligations.