Durg, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Indu Devi W
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:46221 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1075 of 2025 Parshuram S/o Late Bhagwat Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o Bapu Nagar, Ward No. 29, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Indu Devi W/o Parshuram Aged About 53 Years R/o Block-5 B, Road 13, Sector-1, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.09.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2025, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.03.2021 the non-applicant/wife filed an application under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 of Domestic Violence Act before the learned JMFC, Durg, alleging therein that her marriage was performed with the applicant on 14.03.1995 and out of their wedlock, two children daughter Shraddha, aged about 25 years and son Siddharth, aged 2 about 21 have been born. The daughter Shraddha has been married and she is living in her matrimonial house, whereas the son Siddharth is studying in Bangalore and living there. On 11.02.2021 and 13.02.2021 the applicant has committed Marpit with the non- applicant and the non-applicant has lodged report at Police Station, Bhilai Bhatthi, where the offence has been registered against the applicant and subsequently the matter was sent to the Women and Child Development OfÏcer and after conducting Inquiry, the final report was submitted. The applicant is working in Bhilai Steel Plant and on the basis of mediation between the applicant and non- applicant, the applicant is paying Rs. 5000/- per month to the non- applicant for her maintenance. The non-applicant is living separately in rental house and she is paying Rs. 10,000/- monthly rent, therefore the non-applicant prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards maintenance and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses. 3. After serving notice, the applicant filed reply, whereby denied the allegations and submitted that the applicant is working in Bhilai Steel Plant and getting monthly salary, therefore there is occasion for demanding dowry. The non-applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause and the applicant has not committed any domestic violence with the non-applicant. The applicant is paying Rs. 5000/- per month to the non-applicant for her maintenance. It is further contended by the applicant that a fixed deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- is in the name of non-applicant and the non-applicant is getting Rs. 1960/- per month interest and further the learned Family 3 Court, Durg has awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of non-applicant, therefore the non- applicant is not entitled to get any other compensation or maintenance. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court has framed as many as 3 issues and directed the parties to lead their evidence and after hearing both the parties and upon perusal of material available on record, passed the order dated 31.08.2024 whereby rejected the application of the non-applicant by holding that vide order dated 16.12.2023 the learned Family Court has awarded interim maintenance amount of Rs. 7000/- per month and further held that the non-applicant has failed to prove that the applicant has committed any domestic violence against her, therefore she is not entitled to get any compensation or maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. 5. Being aggrieved by order dated 31.08.2024, the non-applicant filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court and after hearing both the parties, the learned appellate Court passed the order dated 18.07.2025 whereby directed the applicant to renew the medical book for treatment of non-applicant and further directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicant towards house rent. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the applicant is already using one day slip for getting medical treatment and this 4 one day slip is applicable for treatment of any type of disease. If the medical book is made, the non-applicant may misuse the same without knowledge of the applicant and as such if so happen then the service of the applicant will be at stake. He also submits that the learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the non- applicant is living separately since 2019 and the applicant has not committed any domestic violence with the non-applicant. The learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that a fixed deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- is in the name of non-applicant and the non- applicant is getting Rs. 1960/- per month interest. The learned appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the learned Family Court, Durg has awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of non-applicant, therefore the non- applicant is not entitled to get any other compensation or maintenance. The learned appellate Court has also failed to appreciate that the applicant has never committed any domestic violence against the Non-applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial Court (JMFC), while considering the pleadings and evidence, held that the non-applicant failed to prove any act of domestic violence. It was observed that since she was already receiving interim maintenance in pursuance of the order passed by the Family Court, she was not entitled to any further relief. The trial Court accordingly rejected the reliefs sought by the non-applicant. Being aggrieved thereby, the 5 non-applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court, upon a detailed re-appraisal of the evidence, held that the definition of domestic violence is not confined merely to physical assault, but also includes economic abuse. It found that the applicant had surrendered his company- allotted accommodation and failed to provide any alternative residence to his legally wedded wife, despite being under a legal and moral obligation to do so. The medical treatment card, necessary for regular medical facilities of the non-applicant who is suffering from heart disease, was not renewed by the applicant, thereby depriving her of essential medical resources. The applicant himself admitted that apart from the amount being paid under the order of the Family Court and through company disbursements, he had not been incurring any expenses towards the non-applicant’s sustenance. The Appellate Court therefore concluded that the non- applicant had indeed been subjected to economic abuse within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. Consequently, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and issued the directions that the applicant shall ensure renewal of the non-applicant’s medical book/card so that she may continue to receive medical treatment. Misuse of the card, if any, shall automatically render this relief inoperative. The appellant shall, in addition to the maintenance already being paid, pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards house rent for providing residential accommodation to the non-applicant. 6 9. Having considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the record, this Court finds no perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned appellate Court. 10. It is well settled that “domestic violence” under the Act includes not only physical cruelty but also economic deprivation, denial of medical facilities, and failure to provide adequate residence to the wife. The Appellate Court has rightly relied upon these principles while extending relief to the non-applicant. 11.The order of the appellate Court is reasoned, just and equitable. It does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate/revisional jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal