1 2025:CGHC:33838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 626 of 2019 1 - Jitenedra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Dewangan Aged About 40 Years Occupation Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Government Of Chhattisgarh At Present Posted At Koriya District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Ramkhilawan Dewangan S/o Late Shri Shanker Lal Dewangan Aged About 71 Years Occupation Retired Government Servant. 3 - Smt. Phool Bai Dewangan W/o Shri Ramkhilawan Dewangan Aged About 65 Years Occupation House Wife, All Resident Of Near Kakkoo Katiyapara Juna Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Applicants Versus 1 - Smt. Niti Dewangan Aged About 36 Years, Occupation Assistant Professor, K. M.T. Government Girls College, Raigarh R/o Palace Road, Kostapara, Near Nursing Mandir Gali, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate as well Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Adv. For State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /07/2025 1. By way of this criminal revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed before this Hon'ble Court that under the facts and circumstances mentioned above the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is arbitrary and in serious violation of provisions of the Act, 2005 which deserves to be set aside and proceeding of the trial Court deserves to be dropped forthwith, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, are that Applicant No. 1 and Non-applicant No. 1 are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2008. At the time of marriage, Applicant No. 1 was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer at Kasdol (District Raipur) and was subsequently transferred to Sakti (District Janjgir-Champa) in 2009, Kharsia (District Raigarh) from 2010 to August 2017, and thereafter to Raigarh. Non-applicant No. 1 was serving as a casual Guest Lecturer at P.D.S. College, Raigarh. From the very beginning of the marriage, Non-applicant No. 1 regularly resided at her parental house at Raigarh until the first week of April 2016. This is corroborated by documents such as pay slips from the college, her voter ID card (2008, 2009, 2018), Aadhaar card, and the application form for the post of Assistant Professor. She never 3 resided regularly with Applicant No. 1 except for a few weekend visits. As a result, Applicant No. 1 was compelled to frequently visit her parental house and bear all expenses of her parental family. He also funded her PSC coaching in Bilaspur, which led to her success in the 2009 PSC examination and eventual appointment as Assistant Professor (Commerce) in December 2012. Prior to her selection, Non-applicant No. 1 served as a Guest Lecturer at P.D. Commerce and Arts College, Raigarh from 2007–08 to 2009–10, and at Government College, Dharamjaigarh from October 2010 to May 2011, with an average monthly salary of approximately 5,000/-. In April 2016, the couple shifted to their ₹ jointly constructed house. Shortly thereafter, Non-applicant No. 1 began quarreling and insisted on returning to her parental house. Her parents and relatives frequently visited and attempted to take her back. On the request of Applicant No. 1, Applicants No. II and III visited Raigarh for reconciliation, leading to a consent letter dated 19/04/2016, under which Non-applicant No. 1 went to her parental house. She returned to the matrimonial home on 22/05/2016 post-surgery, and another consent deed was prepared on 02/06/2016. Non-applicant No. 1 again created disputes and finally left the matrimonial house on 13/04/2017 during the official tour of Applicant No. 1, taking valuable belongings and domestic materials worth approximately 7 lakhs, leaving behind an ₹ unsigned letter. All efforts of social reconciliation, including involvement of Dewangan Samaj and Mahila Thana, failed due to 4 non-cooperation and threats from Non-applicant No. 1 and her relatives. 3. Despite Applicant No. 1’s reconciliatory efforts, Non-applicant No. 1 filed several complaints, including to the State Women’s Commission. It was noted that there was no issue of dowry or cruelty, and that Non-applicant No. 1 preferred residing with her parents over her husband’s family. Non-applicant No. 1 filed an application under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 through the Protection Officer, without conducting any local inquiry, which were rejected by the trial Court based on a prima facie report, despite no clear findings in the report. 4. In her reply, Non-applicant No. 1 disclosed a regular monthly salary of 70,427/- as an Assistant Professor and admitted to ₹ residing with her parents. The applicants argued she was financially independent and not entitled to interim maintenance or residence orders. In a parallel civil suit, this Hon’ble Court directed that Applicant No. 1 cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law (order dated 29/08/2018, M.A. No. 72/2018, Annexure P/16). The appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act was dismissed by the Vth Upper Sessions Judge, Raigarh, on 27/09/2018 (impugned order). A letter dated 11/10/2017 from the Protection Officer (Annexure P/17) and letter dated 21/11/2017 from the Principal of K.M.T. Girls College, Raigarh (Annexure P/18) confirm Non-applicant No. 1’s stable employment and salary. It is alleged 5 that she seeks to harass the applicants and coerce Applicant No. 1 into living as a "ghar jamai" while the applicants face mental, physical, and financial harassment due to the false complaint, which remains un-investigated. Hence, this revision. 5 Learned counsel for the applicants submits the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is bad in law, arbitrary, and in gross violation of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Hence, it deserves to be set aside, and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court are liable to be dropped. He further submits that no preliminary investigation was conducted by the Protection Officer, Mahila Bal Vikas, Raigarh prior to submission of the application before the Trial Court, which is mandated under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. It has been contended that no specific or duly verified report of the Protection Officer indicating commission of domestic violence was enclosed with the application. The application appears to have been mechanically forwarded to the Trial Court, without any factual foundation or local enquiry. It has been further contended that both the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the crucial findings of the Family Counseling Centre, Raigarh dated 26.11.2017, and the detailed report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raigarh dated 07.12.2017, which clearly observed that the allegations made by Non-applicant No. 1 were found to be false and unsubstantiated. 6 It has been argued that no act of domestic violence i.e., physical, verbal, emotional, or economic has been proved to have been committed by the applicants, nor has any such allegation been corroborated by any independent or conclusive document. In the absence of such proof, the basic ingredients required to invoke the jurisdiction under the Act remain unfulfilled. The learned Courts below failed to properly consider the written arguments dated 08.03.2018 submitted by the applicants, which comprehensively addressed the issue of tenability. It was sufficiently pointed out that Non-applicant No. 1 is drawing a regular monthly salary of 70,427/-, and is financially ₹ independent. This vital fact was deliberately concealed from the Court. It has been further submitted that there was no reported incident of domestic violence while residing at the matrimonial house. The pattern of behaviour indicates that the real intent of Non-applicant No. 1 is to coerce Applicant No. 1 to stay at her parental house as a "Ghar Jamai," a situation that has persisted from 2008 until April 2016, contrary to marital norms and the spirit of companionship. Both the subordinate Courts have erred in rejecting the application challenging the tenability of the proceedings, despite the absence of any prima facie evidence of domestic violence. The conduct of Non-applicant No. 1 reflects misuse of the beneficial provisions of the Act, which goes against its object and purpose, and thereby amounts to a gross abuse of 7 the process of law. Therefore, the present revision deserves to be allowed. 6 On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private Non-applicant opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is well-reasoned, legally sound, and in conformity with the spirit and intent of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The appellate court has rightly upheld the findings of the learned Trial Court after due appreciation of facts and evidence, and hence, no interference is warranted. The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act are social welfare legislation intended to protect the rights of aggrieved women. The requirement under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is not strictly applicable, as the Act is a special statute with its own mechanism, including the role of the Protection Officer under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Therefore, the contention regarding lack of preliminary investigation is misconceived. He further submits that the Protection Officer has forwarded the application after recording the complaint of the Non-applicant and forming a prima facie opinion regarding the commission of domestic violence. The forwarding of the application itself reflects satisfaction of the Protection Officer, and a detailed report is not mandatory at the stage of initiation. The reports dated 26.11.2017 and 07.12.2017 relied upon by the applicants do not conclusively 8 negate the allegations of domestic violence. In fact, these are not judicial findings, and hence cannot override the statutory procedure or deprive the aggrieved person of her right to be heard before a competent court. It has been contended that the domestic violence need not always manifest in visible or documented abuse. It may also be verbal, emotional, economic, or psychological, often taking place within the confines of the household. The continuous neglect, mental cruelty, and coercion faced by the Non-applicant, as detailed in the complaint, are sufficient to make out a prima facie case. The financial independence of the Non-applicant cannot be a ground to deny her protection under the Act. Economic status is not a bar to invoke the remedies available under the Domestic Violence Act. The object of the Act is to provide protection from abuse, not to assess the earning capacity of the aggrieved person. It has been submitted that the consistent conduct of the applicants in forcing the Non-applicant to live away from her family, neglecting her emotional well-being, and attempting to isolate her amounts to emotional and psychological abuse, which falls within the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act. The plea of the applicants that the complaint is an attempt to make Applicant No. 1 a “Ghar Jamai” is misleading, derogatory, and irrelevant in the legal context. The attempt to trivialize genuine grievances amounts to re-victimization and reflects the insensitivity of the applicants towards the mental and emotional 9 trauma faced by the Non-applicant. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the objection regarding tenability after examining the Protection Officer’s submission and considering the prima facie material on record. The Appellate Court has affirmed this view, and no interference is called for in revisionary jurisdiction. 7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with due care and consideration. 8 Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the materials available on record, the submissions made by both sides, and the findings of the learned trial Court and appellate Court, it is evident that the relationship between Applicant No.1 (husband) and Non-applicant No.1 (wife) has been strained since inception, marked by prolonged separation and repeated instances of unsuccessful reconciliation. 9 The record demonstrates that from the beginning of the marriage, Non-applicant No.1 continued to reside at her parental home and seldom cohabited with Applicant No.1. Despite his repeated efforts at reconciliation, including social mediation and written consent agreements, she voluntarily returned to her parents and ultimately left the matrimonial home permanently in April 2017. She is a well-educated, financially independent woman, drawing a regular salary as an Assistant Professor, and her continued 10 separate residence is a matter of choice rather than compulsion arising from domestic violence. 10 It is a settled principle of law that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, though enacted with the intent to safeguard the rights of aggrieved women, must not be allowed to become a tool for unwarranted harassment, especially against aged in-laws and relatives without specific and substantiated allegations. 11 Insofar as Applicants No.2 and 3 (the parents of Applicant No.1) are concerned, the complaint is completely silent on any concrete incident of domestic violence attributable to them. There is neither any prima facie material nor any statement reflecting their active involvement in causing any physical, emotional, or economic abuse to the Non-applicant. Their mere relationship to the husband does not automatically bring them within the purview of the Act unless the allegations are specific and credible. 12 The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that vague and omnibus allegations against family members without particulars do not meet the threshold required under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the matter of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that criminal law cannot be set into motion against relatives in the absence of specific allegations. 11 13 In the matter of Kusum Lata Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5965, the Bombay High Court quashed proceedings against aged parents where the wife had failed to state any particular act of domestic violence against them. 14 Further, in the matter of Manoj Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 764, this Court held that dragging elderly parents-in-law into Domestic Violence proceedings without concrete allegations is an abuse of judicial process. 15 Considering the matter in its entirely in the light of aforementioned judicial precedents, this Court is of the view that in absence of any direct, specific, or cogent allegation, the continuance of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against Applicants No.2 and 3 would amount to nothing more than harassment and abuse of the process of law, which cannot be sustained. 16 On the other hand, Applicant No.1 (husband), being the spouse and the person with whom the matrimonial dispute originated, cannot claim the same benefit. The allegations made against him, though not conclusively established at this stage, still require adjudication in the light of the materials and social dynamics of the marriage. The trial Court and appellate Court have already applied their mind and refused to quash proceedings against him, and no perversity or error of law is evident in the aforesaid findings. 12 17 In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed insofar as it relates to Applicants No.2 and 3 (parents of Applicant No.1). The proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated by Non-applicant No.1, are hereby quashed and set aside only in respect of Applicants No.2 and 3 (parents of Applicant No.1), as continuation of the same would be an abuse of the process of law in the absence of any specific allegations. 18 The revision petition is dismissed as against Applicant No.1 (husband). The impugned order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Vth Upper Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in so far as it upholds the continuation of proceedings against Applicant No.1, is found to be legal and proper, warranting no interference by this Court at this stage. 19 The trial Court is directed to proceed further with the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as per law, and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs. 20 A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal