DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) The short and crucial question on which result of these two criminal revision petitions depends is whether Smt. Uma Sharma is covered within the definition of "aggrieved person" given under Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short as 'D.V.Act'). Facts in brief:
(2.) The factual matrix which transpires from the perusal of the record and from the arguments advanced by both sides, is that the marriage between Smt. Uma Sharma and Sh. Satyendra Kumar Sharma took place on 15.10.2004. Out of this wedlock, a son named Akshay Sharma was born on 11.10.2008. It has been alleged that Smt. Uma was thrown out of the matrimonial home in the year 2010. She filed a complaint bearing No. 30/2010 under Section 12 of the D.V.Act which came to be decided against her vide judgment dated 7.5.2012. She preferred an appeal which came to be decided on 2.2.2013 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur while quashing and setting aside the order dated 7.5.2012, learned Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial court with the direction to decide the matter afresh. The matter was again heard and decided vide judgment dated 18.4.2015 by the learned trial court. This time all the five issues were decided in favour of wife Smt. Uma and the application filed by her under Sec.12 of the D.V.Act was allowed and respondents including the husband Satyendra Kumar were directed not to commit domestic violence towards the wife Smt. Uma. At the same time, under the provision of Sec.19 of the D.V.Act, the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month for alternate accommodation/rental and Rs. 5,000/- per month for monetary relief/maintenance in favour of wife Smt. Uma and her son. Simultaneously, compensation in the tune of Rs. 30,000/- was also awarded in favour of wife Smt. Uma. Aggrieved by this order, husband Satyendra Kumar and wife Smt. Uma both preferred appeals which came to be decided vide judgment dated 30.1.2016. By this judgment appeals preferred by both of them were rejected and the judgment passed by learned trial court on 18.4.2015 was upheld. Against this judgment dated 30.1.2016, husband and wife both have preferred SB Cr. Revision Pet. Nos. 312/2016 and 265/2018 before this court which are being decided by this order. Husband Satyendra Kumar has approached this court with a prayer to set aside the judgment dated 30.1.2016, whereas wife Smt. Uma has prayed that maintenance allowance may be increased to Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- per month be provided for suitable accommodation to her and her son. Submissions
(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for husband Satyendra Kumar contends that the marriage which allegedly took place on 15.10.2004 between Satyendra Kumar and Smt. Uma was a valid marriage as the previous husband of Smt. Uma namely Sh. K.M. (Krishna Murari) Trivedi was alive and no divorce had taken place between them on or before 15.10.2004. It has also been stated that first marriage of Smt. Uma took place with one Rakesh Patel in the year 1996. She again married in the year 2002 with Sh. K.M. Trivedi. Suppressing the fact of her marriage with K.M. Trivedi and pretending to be a divorcee, Smt. Uma got an advertisement published for her marriage on 12.9.2004. Learned counsel has further stated that on the petition filed under Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage of Smt. Uma with husband Satyendra Kumar has been declared to be null and void from the very inception vide judgment dated 22.8.2016 passed by learned Family Judge No. 2, Jaipur. The counsel contends that in view of above, Smt. Uma cannot be treated in the category of "aggrieved person" as defined under Sec. 2(a) of the D.V. Act.;