Chabilal Sahu vs Smt. Madhu Sahu on 8 August, 2025

0
1

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.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here