Chattisgarh High Court
Chabilal Sahu vs Smt. Madhu Sahu on 8 August, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.08.12
10:09:22
+0530
2025:CGHC:39745
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2487 of 2025
1 - Chabilal Sahu S/o Late Shri Dulruwa Sahu, Aged About 58 Years,
R/o 35/1-C, Risali Sector, Ward No. 58, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And
District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Smt. Madhu Sahu W/o Chabilal Sahu, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Street No. - 1, House No. - 000459, Behind Sai Diagnostic Center,
Radha Vihar Colony, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Seema Sahu D/o Chabilal Sahu, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Street
No. - 1, House No. - 000459, Behind Sai Diagnostic Center, Radha
Vihar Colony, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Nisha Sahu D/o Chabilal Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Street
No. - 1, House No. - 000459, Behind Sai Diagnostic Center, Radha
Vihar Colony, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents : Not noticed.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
08/08/2025
1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order
2
dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 242/2024. The appeal
arose from the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Case No.
501/2024. The Appellate Court dismissed the criminal appeal,
affirming the order of the JMFC whereby the application filed by the
respondent No.1 under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21,
and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
was entertained and heard arguments on admission, taken
cognizance under Section 12 of the Act, and issued notices to the
petitioner.
2. The facts of the present case, in short, are that the respondent
No. 1 filed a domestic violence case against the petitioner,
alleging physical and mental harassment. It is alleged that
petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married in 1990 and has
two daughters. The respondent No. 1 claimed that she was
thrown out of the house in January 2024 and sought various
reliefs, including protection, maintenance, and compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court are
contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the
grounds raised in the objection and appeal were not duly
considered. Specifically, it is contended that the petitioner’s
legally wedded wife is Kaushalya, as evidenced by her Aadhaar
card, which records the petitioner as her husband. Despite this,
the Courts below failed to recognize that Respondent No. 1 is
not the petitioner’s legally wedded wife. Additionally, the
3
complaint under the Domestic Violence Act is vague, lacking
specific dates of alleged incidents. In view of the above, the
petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned orders dated
10.05.2024 and 19.06.2024 passed by the Trial Court and
Appellate Court, respectively.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record including the impugned orders.
5. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently
observed that Respondent No. 1 is the mother of Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3, who are major girls aged about 31 and 28 years,
and that Respondent No. 1 and the petitioner were married in
1990. In light of these facts, particularly the petitioner having
signed as the father of the two major girls (Respondent Nos. 2
and 3) for several years, as evident from the documents on
record, and considering the entirety of the case’s facts and
circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the offence
as well as the material collected and available on record against
the petitioner, I find no infirmity or illegality in the orders
passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court that would
warrant interference.
6. Consequently, the present petition has no merits and is hereby
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.