1 2025:CGHC:38898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 515 of 2024 Chhotelal Prajapati Son of Rajbahor Prajapati Aged About 35 Years Resident of Main Road, Bodtarakala, Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Annu Prajapati Wife of Chhotelal Prajapati Aged About 32 Years Resident of Chhote Koni, Police Station - Koni, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Roshan Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravikar Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Roshan Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2024, in the interest of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.07 11:42:28 +0530 2 justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act, 2005”) before the learned JMFC, Bilaspur, stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant according to Hindu rites and rituals in the year 2014. After the marriage, she went to the applicant’s house to perform her matrimonial obligations. Out of their wedlock, one son, Prince, was born in the year 2015, and a daughter, Priya, was born in the year 2016. Both children are residing with the respondent. After some time, the applicant and other in-laws began subjecting her to cruelty on account of dowry demands. The applicant and his family members used to tease and beat her over petty domestic issues. She endured all this with the hope that their behavior would change, but the harassment—both mental and physical— continued. As a result, she has been residing in her parental home along with her children since 2017. The respondent submitted that she has no source of income and the applicant is not providing any maintenance for her or the minor children. Therefore, she filed the application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005. 4. After service of notice, the applicant and his family members filed their reply, denying the allegations made by the respondent. They submitted that they never subjected her to cruelty on account of dowry. In fact, the respondent was unhappy with the marriage and informed them that she had married the applicant under pressure and that the marriage would not last long. She used to misbehave with the applicant and his family members. The respondent herself left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and returned to her parental home without informing the applicant or his family. She also made a false complaint before the 3 Mahila Thana, Bilaspur. Upon receiving notice, the applicant appeared before the Mahila Thana and expressed his willingness to take the respondent back, but she refused. Consequently, the Mahila Thana rejected her complaint. 5. Thereafter, the applicant sent a notice through his counsel requesting the respondent to return to the matrimonial home, but she did not respond. The applicant is still ready and willing to keep her, but she is unwilling to live with him. Thus, it is the respondent who has deserted the applicant and has been living at her parental home since 2019 without any valid reason. Hence, the application filed by the respondent is liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed three issues for adjudication and directed the parties to lead evidence. 7. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 22.03.2023, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards the education of the minor children, Rs. 3,000/- for accommodation, and Rs. 5,000/- towards the maintenance of the respondent and minor children. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous; hence, it is liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is not running any Ita Bhatta (brick kiln), and the respondent has not produced any documentary evidence in this regard. He submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent repeatedly used to visit her parental house within short intervals. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has never committed any act of domestic violence against the respondent. He further submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent herself left her 4 matrimonial house and deserted the applicant without any reasonable cause. He also submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has never ousted the respondent from his house. Rather, it is the respondent who, of her own will, went to her parental house and did not return, despite several efforts made by the applicant to bring her back. Learned trial Court failed to consider that the applicant is ever ready and willing to keep the respondent, but she is not willing to reside with him. Therefore, she is not entitled to any relief under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2005. Moreover, the provisions of the Act, 2005 do not empower the Court to grant maintenance to children, and hence the order passed to that extent is bad in law and liable to be quashed. He submits that it is a well-settled principle of law that benefits under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned trial Court. 11. From perusal of the order of the learned trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court observed that:- 20.Upon perusal of the records of the trial court, it prima facie appeared that the non-applicants had harassed the applicants and forced them out of the house. In such a situation, non-applicant No. 1, being the husband of the applicant, was morally responsible for her maintenance. On this basis, the learned trial court, after discussing all the facts in 5 detail, had allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by passing a detailed order. No error was found in the said order. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper. 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek