Rudrasharan Pratap Singh S/o Late Deewan Prasad Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Chunchuni v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29583 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 519 of 2017 Rudrasharan Pratap Singh S/o Late Deewan Prasad Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Chunchuni Colony Q. No. M.Q. 35 Adarsh Nagar Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Non-applicant in the trial Court.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Radha Bai W/o Rudrasharan Pratap Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o C/o Onkar Prasad Jaiswal S/o Harinarayan Jaiswal Deepaka Basti Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Original Applicants In The Trial Court) 2. Miss Kavita D/o Rudrasharan Pratap Singh Aged About 8 Years
Legal Reasoning
Through Smt. Radha Bai Natural Guardian Mother, R/o C/o Onkar Prasad Jaiswal S/o Harinarayan Jaiswal Deepaka Basti Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Original Applicants In The Trial Court.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.04 10:56:28 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel, appearing for applicant. Also heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2017 (Annexure R-1) passed by Additional Judge to Additional Session Judge Katghora District Korba (C.G.), in Criminal appeal No. 25/2013, arising out of the order dated 18.02.2015 (Annexure R-2), passed by JMFC Katghora in M.J.C. No. 06/2012, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein (in the revision) had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Domestic Violence Act”) seeking protection from domestic violence, provision of medical facilities, residential premises, and maintenance before the trial Court against the applicant, on the allegations that respondent no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent no. 2 is the daughter of the applicant. It was further alleged that the applicant herein (in 3 the revision) had deserted the respondents, was not taking care of them, and was subjecting them to cruelty for demand of dowry. With these averments, the respondents filed the application before the trial Court. 4. After registering the case, the learned trial Court issued notice to the present applicant, who thereafter filed his written statement. After recording the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court passed its final order dated 18.02.2015, allowing the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and directing the applicant to provide the following facilities to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The directions are as follows: A. Under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, the applicant shall not commit any act of domestic violence against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. B. Under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, the applicant shall provide the house situated at Village Dhodhatarai to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for their residence within one month. C. Under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act, the applicant shall provide the Medical Card provided by the employer of the applicant to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. D. Under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act, the applicant shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as maintenance on or before the 10 th of every month. 4 E. Under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within one month from the date of the order. 5. The present applicant herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 25/2015 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) against the order dated 18.02.2015. The Appellate Court, after hearing the parties and perusal of the record, vide order dated 08.03.2017, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and confirmed the order passed by learned trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders (Annexure R-1) dated 08.03.2017 and 18.02.2015 are bad in law and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The orders passed by the learned trial Court are not well-reasoned, are baseless, and are against the law. He submits that the learned Trial Court have passed the orders without jurisdiction by holding that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the house of the present applicant situated at Village Dhodhatarai, ignoring the fact that under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court has the power only to ascertain whether the woman has a place of residence, and if not, to direct that a residential facility be provided. However, in the present case, learned Trial Court has directed the applicant to provide the entire house to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the learned trial Court have held that the present applicant and his second wife are creating nuisance against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which is 5 contrary to the material available on record, and there is no evidence in this regard. Therefore, such a finding and direction are bad in law. He also submits that while deciding the issue of maintenance, the learned trial Court ignored the fact that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are already receiving maintenance from the present applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was later enhanced under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Granting further maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. The order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order. The quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents is on the higher side, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. On the the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant in the present criminal revision. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned trial Court. 9. From perusal of the order of the learned trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court observed that:- 15. The subordinate Court also awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the respondents. In this regard, in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the subordinate Court, considering the emotional distress and mental harassment caused to respondent No. 1 and 2 (herein) by the conduct of the applicant, awarded 6 compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. In this regard, the applicant had submitted an afÏdavit before the subordinate Court, marked as Exhibit D-1, regarding which respondent no. 1 stated before the subordinate Court that she was illiterate, and the applicant/appellant had taken her signature on it saying that it was required for medical treatment, and she had signed it on the instructions of her husband. In the Indian context, a wife naturally trusted her husband. On observing paragraph 11 of the statements of Radha Bai (respondent No. 1), she also stated that she was illiterate and had signed without reading, and she stated in her deposition that whenever the applicant came to the village Dhodhatarai, where she was residing at that time, he did not talk to her, did not fulfill her needs, and instead used to beat her. In paragraph 16, she denied the allegation that she was not beaten, which was why she did not lodge any report, and in paragraph 17, she also denied this allegation that the applicant had kept her in his house, but she left the house on her own will, and she also denied the claim that the applicant had tried several times to bring her back, but she did not return. In this manner, there was sufÏcient evidence in this case regarding the occurrence of domestic violence. Therefore, after examining the statements of all the witnesses before the subordinate Court and in 7 accordance with the legal principles laid down in the above-mentioned precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the decision of the subordinate Court appeared to be proper. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek