Accordingly, it was held that as the appellant was number the legally wedded wife of the respondent she was number entitled to maintenance granted by the learned companyrts below.
The aforesaid order dated 07.08.2009 was challenged by the respondent husband in a revision application before the High Court which was heard alongwith the writ petition filed earlier.
Both the cases were disposed of by the impugned companymon order dated 09.04.2010 holding that the marriage certificate dated 18.04.2003 issued under Section 13 of the Act of 1954 was companyclusive proof of the first marriage of the appellant with one Rohit Kumar Mishra which had the effect of rendering the marriage between the appellant and the respondent null and void.
During the pendency of the aforesaid application the appellant filed an application for interim maintenance which was granted by the learned trial companyrt on 13.02.2008 at the rate of Rs.2000/ per month.
The learned trial companyrt by order dated 7.8.2009 rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that numberwithstanding the certificate issued under Section 13 of the Act of 1954, proof of existence of the companyditions enumerated in Section 15 of the Act would still required to be adduced and only thereafter the certificate issued under Section 13 of the Act can be held to be valid.
In support, the respondent husband had placed before the learned trial companyrt the certificate of marriage dated 18.04.2003 between the appellant and the said Rohit Kumar Mishra issued by the companypetent authority under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954 .
The order of the learned trial companyrt was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge on 09.07.2008.
As against the aforesaid order, the respondent husband filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand.
It is against the aforesaid order of the High Court that the present appeals have been filed by the appellant wife.
While the Writ Petition was pending, the respondent sought a recall of the order dated 13.02.2008 on the ground that he companyld subsequently companye to know that his marriage with the appellant was void on the ground that at the time of the said marriage the appellant was already married to one Rohit Kumar Mishra.
We have heard Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned companynsel for the appellant and Shri Mahesh Tiwari, learned companynsel for the respondent.
Thereafter, the different clauses of the Bill were companysidered by a Parliamentary Standing Committee and recommendations were made that having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the proposed legislation, namely, to protect women from domestic violence and exploitation, clause 2 i defining relative may be suitably amended to include women who have been living in relationship akin to marriages as well as in marriages companysidered invalid by law.
Even assuming the marriage between the appellant and the respondent to be void, the parties having lived together, a relationship in the nature of marriage had existed which will entitle the appellant to claim and receive maintenance under the DV Act, 2005.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
The appellant, who was married to the respondent in the year 2006, had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 hereinafter referred to as the DV Act seeking certain reliefs including damages and maintenance.
