Order Both the cases arising out of the same case were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ application is directed against the order dated 9.7.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. App. No.3 of 2008 affirming the order dated 13.2.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,0001- per month as interim allowance of maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (here-inafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The case of the petitioner is that a marriage was solemnized in between him and Deoki Panjhiyara, respondent no. 2 on 4.12.2006 at Deoghar. Thereafter the petitioner took his wife to his place where after staying only for two and half months she was taken by her brother to her parents' house. While she was staying at her parents house, the petitioner whenever talked to her on telephone, her behaviour was quite rude as she held out threat for implicating him in a false case. The petitioner sensing some trouble at the hand of her wife, filed an Informatory Petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger but still waited for her to come. When she did not come, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed ex parte. Thereafter when the petitioner came to his in-law's place, he was not only ill-treated but was subjected to threat and therefore, the petitioner again filed an Informatory Petition on 30.4.2007. Thereupon the respondent no. 2 having come to know about the decree passed in a matrimonial suit filed a complaint case, bearing P.C.R. Case No. 141 of 2007 alleging therein that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon the petitioner filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was later on decreed. However, in the meantime, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara 'which was registered as v1isc. Thereupon the petitioner filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was later on decreed. However, in the meantime, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara 'which was registered as v1isc. Application No. 7 of 2007 stating therein that after being' married legally, when she came to her husband's house, she could know that her husband (petitioner) does have illicit relation with his niece. When she raised protest over it, her husband and other family members started subjecting her to torture and the other day, she was thrashed so badly that she suffered dislocation of forearm and elbow joint and, therefore, she left her matrimonial home. It was also pleaded that she does not have any source of livelihood as she is unemployed whereas her husband who is a cultivator and also a businessman is having income of Rs. 50,000/- per month. On the said pleadings, prayers were made to allow a sum of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance allowance and to direct the petitioner to return the ornaments which she was having as 'Stridhan' and to award Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. 4. On receiving the notice, the petitioner did appear and filed his written statement wherein allegation made in the petition was denied and at- the same time the petitioner put forth his case as has been stated above. Thereafter the matter was taken up for trial wherein respondent no. 2 and also the petitioner did adduce their evidences. However, when the trial was going on, an application was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 on 31.7.2008 purported to be under Section 23 of the said Act claiming interim maintenance. Rejoinder to that application was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Upon hearing both the parties, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, vide its order dated 13.2.2008 passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/per month as maintenance to the respondent no. 2. That order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara by filing Cr. App. No. 3 of 2008 which was dismissed after considering evidences adduced in relation to the income of the petitioner and the immovable properties holding therein that maintenance allowance to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- per month is quite appropriate. 5. 2. That order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara by filing Cr. App. No. 3 of 2008 which was dismissed after considering evidences adduced in relation to the income of the petitioner and the immovable properties holding therein that maintenance allowance to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- per month is quite appropriate. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, the writ petition, bearing W.P. (Cr.) No. 205 of 2008 has been filed. 6. However, when the matter was pending before this Court, the petitioner, as per his case, came to know in the month of March, 2009 that respondent no. 2 who married the petitioner was married from before as she had married to one Rohit Kumar Mishra on 18.4.2003 under the Special Marriage Act and during subsistence of the said marriage, respondent no. 2 took another marriage with the petitioner. Such marriage being void, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara for recall of the order dated 13.2.2008 under which interim maintenance allowance was awarded. The petitioner in support of his assertion also annexed certified copy of the marriage certificate issued by the office of the Registrar General of Marriage, West Bengal. The said application was opposed by the respondent no.2 by denying her marriage with Rohit Kumar Mishra. Thereupon the original Register relating to registration of marriage was called for and was proved in the case. However, learned Magistrate after hearing the parties rejected the prayer on 7.8.2009 on the ground that certificate of marriage is never a conclusive proof of marriage being solemnized under the Hindu Rites and Rituals which is required to be proved before annulment of the marriage. 7. Being aggrieved with that, the revision application has been filed. 8. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 not only played fraud upon the petitioner by marrying him during subsistence of her first marriage which gets proved from the certificate issued by the Registrar General of Marriage, Kolkata, West Bengal but also played fraud upon the court by not disclosing the said fact and got the order of interim maintenance. 2 not only played fraud upon the petitioner by marrying him during subsistence of her first marriage which gets proved from the certificate issued by the Registrar General of Marriage, Kolkata, West Bengal but also played fraud upon the court by not disclosing the said fact and got the order of interim maintenance. passed in her favour which, in the facts and circumstances, is nothing but a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and was fit to be recalled but the court did not attach any importance to the certificate of marriage and hence, committed grave illegality by ignoring the marriage certificate and refusing to recall the order under which interim maintenance was allowed against the petitioner. 9. However, Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the court below did not commit any illegality either in passing the order allowing interim maintenance to respondent no. 2 or refusing to recall the said order as certificate of registration of marriage is not a conclusive proof of marriage solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act and as such, respondent no. 2 in absence of any conclusive proof cannot be said to have solemnized marriage with the petitioner during subsistence of her first marriage. 10. In this regard, it was furtner submitted that second marriage can be said to be void only when it is proved that first marriage was performed as per rites, rituals and ceremonies including the 'Saptwadi' as contemplated under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act which proposition of law has been laid down in a case of Balwinder Kaur VS. Gurmukh Singh ( AIR 2007 P&H 74 ). 11. Learned counsel also referred to a decision rendered in a case of Kanwal Ram and Others VS. The Himachal Pradesh Administration ( AIR 1966 SC 614 ). 12. Thus, it was submitted that learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality in refusing to recall its earlier order dated 13.2.2008 whereby interim maintenance had rightly been allowed. 13 Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that respondent no. 2 on the allegation of being subjected to act of domestic violence by the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Act putting forth certain claims including the claim of maintenance. 13 Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that respondent no. 2 on the allegation of being subjected to act of domestic violence by the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Act putting forth certain claims including the claim of maintenance. However, during the pendency of the said case, prayer was made for grant of interim maintenance which was allowed under Section 23 of the Act. But subsequently, the petitioner on coming to know that respondent no. 2 has married him during subsistence of her first marriage, filed an application for recall of the order under which interim maintenance was allowed. The said application was accompanied by certified copies of the declaration made under Section 11 by bridegroom Rohit Kumar Mishra and also by bride Deoki Panjhiyara. Besides that certificate of marriage solemnized in between them issued under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act. 1954 was also annexed. However. the court did not consider the certificate of marriage to be conclusive proof of the marriage in view of the decision rendered in a case of Balwinder Kaur vs. Gurmukh Singh (supra) on the ground that before holding second marriage to be void. one needs to prove that first marriage was performed in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 14. Thus, the question is as to whether the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is justified in holding so? In order to decide this issue, one needs to examine the provision of the Special Marriage Act. 1954. Chapter-II deals with the matter relating to solemnization of the special marriages. Section 4 of the said chapter speaks about the' condition relating to solemnization of special marriages. On fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Section 4 the parties to the marriage needs to give a 'notice to Marriage Officer of their intention to solemnize marriage under the Special Marriage Act. Thereafter marriage notice needs to be published under Section 6 of the Act. On publication of such notice, if no objection comes forth, the parties and three witnesses in terms of Section 11 are required to sign a declaration in the form specified in Third Schedule of this Act and the declaration shall be countersigned by the Marriage Officer. 15. It be stated that the declaration made by respondent no. On publication of such notice, if no objection comes forth, the parties and three witnesses in terms of Section 11 are required to sign a declaration in the form specified in Third Schedule of this Act and the declaration shall be countersigned by the Marriage Officer. 15. It be stated that the declaration made by respondent no. 2 and her first husband, Rohit Kumar Mishra have been annexed as Annexure-3. On giving such declaration, marriage in terms of Section 12 is solemnized at the office of the Marriage Officer or at such other place and then certificate of marriage is issued under Section 13 in the form specified in Fourth Schedule of the Act. . 16. It be stated that the certificate of marriage in between the respondent no. 2, Deoki Panjhiyara and Rohit Kumar Mishra has been issued under Section 13 of the Act and is in the form as prescribed in Fourth Schedule of the Act. Such certificate being entered into the Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer deemed to be a conclusive evidence in view of the provision as contained in Section 13(2) of the Special Marriage Act of the fact that marriage under this Act has been solemnized. The Section 13 reads as follows: - "Certificate of marriage. -(1) When the marriage has been solemnized, the Marriage Officer shall enter a certificate thereof in the form specified in the Fourth Schedule in a book to be kept by him for that purpose and to be called the Marriage Certificate Book and such certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and the three witnesses. (2) On a certificate being entered in the Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage. Officer, the Certificate shall be deemed to be conclusive evidence of the fact that a marriage under this Act has been solemnized and that all formalities respecting the signature of witnesses have been complied with." 17. Then comes Chapter- III which speaks about the registration of marriages celebrated in other forms. Section 15 of this chapter speaks about Registration of Marriages celebrated in other form and reads as follows: "Section 15. Registration of Marriages celebrated in other forms. Then comes Chapter- III which speaks about the registration of marriages celebrated in other forms. Section 15 of this chapter speaks about Registration of Marriages celebrated in other form and reads as follows: "Section 15. Registration of Marriages celebrated in other forms. -Any marriage celebrated, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, other than a marriage solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1872 or under this Act, may be registered under this Chapter by a Marriage Officer in the territories to which this Act extends if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely (a) a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and they have been living together as husband and wife ever since; (b) neither party has at the time of registration more than one spouse living; (c) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of registration; (d) the parties have completed the age of twenty one years at the time of registration; (e) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship: Provided that in the case of marriage celebrated before the commencement of this Act, this condition shall be subject to any law, custom or usage having the force of law governing each of them which permits of a marriage between the two, and (f) the parties have been residing within the district of the Marriage Officer for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which the application is made to him for registration of the marriage." 18. Section 16 deals with the procedure for registration which reads as under: - "Procedure for registration. --Under receipt of an application signed by both the parties to the marriage for the registration of their marriage under this Chapter, the Marriage Officer shall give public notice thereof in such manner as may be prescribed and after allowing a period of thirty days for objections and after hearing any objection received within that period, shall, if satisfied that all the conditions mentioned in Section 15 are fulfilled, enter a certificate of the marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book in the form specified in the Fifth Schedule and such certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and by three witnesses." 19. Thus, from the reading of the aforesaid two provisions, it does appear that certificate under Section 16 is issued only when the conditions as mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Section 15 are fulfilled and one of the conditions as mentioned in sub-clause (a) is that before issuance of certificate, ceremony of marriage between the parties needs to be performed. Thus, there appears to be two conditions in which certificate of marriage are issued, one under Section 13 and other under Section 16. If the certificate is issued under Section 13 after fulfilling all the conditions as required under the Act, the certificate issued does assume characteristics of conclusive evidence of the fact that a marriage under this Act has been solemnized, whereas certificate issued under Section 16 does not have conclusive evidentiary value of the fact of the marriage in between the parties. Therefore, the Court in a case of Balwinder Kaur vs. Gurmukh Singh (supra) has held that the marriage issued under Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is not a conclusive proof of marriage solemnized under the Act and if one intends to establish that the marriage has been solemnized, he needs to prove that before issuance of a certificate under Section 16.ceremonies of the marriage as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act has strictly been performed. 20. There appears to be logic in attaching characteristics of conclusive evidentiary value with the certificate issued under Section 13 of the Act as that certificate is issued when the marriage is performed in presence of Marriage Registrar whereas in case of other marriage in which certificate is issued under Section 16 of the Act, it never takes place in presence of the Marriage Registrar rather marriage gets solemnized earlier under the rites, rituals and ceremonies necessary to be gone into under the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the certificate issued under Section 16 of the Act is never taken to be conclusive proof of marriage in between the parties. 21. Thus, the situations which were there in a case of Balwinder Kaur vs. Gurmukh Singh (supra) are quite different from the present case. Here, as I have stated that the parties to the marriage, i.e. respondent no. 21. Thus, the situations which were there in a case of Balwinder Kaur vs. Gurmukh Singh (supra) are quite different from the present case. Here, as I have stated that the parties to the marriage, i.e. respondent no. 2 and Rohit Kumar Mishra on getting marriage solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was granted certificate of marriage under Section 13 of the Act, which according to sub-clause (2) of Section 13 is deemed to be conclusive evidence of the marriage in between the parties. That being so, the marriage solemnized in between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 is certainly in contravention of Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act which is void in terms of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act which reads as follows: - "11. Void marriages. -Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes anyone of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5". 22. Thus, a marriage in contravention of the clauses as contemplated under clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 is null and void. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Abhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another ( AIR 1988 SC 644 ) has observed as follows:- "The marriage covered by Section 11 are void ipso jure, that is, void from the very inception, and have to be ignored as not existing in law at all if and when such a question arises. Although the section permits a formal declaration to be made on the presentation of a petition, it is not essential to obtain in advance such a formal declaration from a court in a proceeding specifically commenced for the purpose." 24. The next question does crop up as to whether a woman who has solemnized the marriage in contravention of clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act can maintain an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Section 12 does prescribe that an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Section. Section 12 does prescribe that an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Section. The aggrieved person has been defined under Section 2(a) of the Act which reads as follows: - "The aggrieved person means any woman, who is or has a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent." 'Domestic relationship' has been defined in Section 2(f) of the Act which reads as follows: - "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." 25. Conjoint reading of both the definitions clearly indicate that a woman who is either related by consanguinity or marriage if has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent, she can be said to be a aggrieved person. 26. Here, in the instant case, as I have found earlier that marriage in between the petitioner and the respondent being null and void, it can hardly be said that any domestic relationship by way of marriage existed in between them. That being so, the respondent is not entitled to relief as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act. For the other reason also, she is not entitled to get any relief as she did not come to court with clean hand, rather her case was based on falsehood. 27. In this respect, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and Others ( AIR 1994 SC 853 ) where it has been held as under: - "the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party." 28. So far this case is concerned, the petitioner by filing application under Section 12 of the Act moved the Court but without disclosing the factum of the first marriage which could have much bearing on the result of the proceeding and hence, she can be said to have got the order of interim maintenance in her favour by playing fraud. 29. In that view of the matter, the order dated 13.2.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara and the order dated 9.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara which are the subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition and also the order dated 7.8.2009 which is the subject matter of the revision application whereby the court refused to recall its earlier order awarding interim maintenance are hereby set aside. 30. In the result, both the applications are allowed.