1 2025:CGHC:3518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1034 of 2018 Moh. Tahsin Aslam S/o Noor Qutub Aged About 37 Years R/o Maharaja Road, Near Mokri Masjid, Chandpara, Mujapharpur, Bihar. ... Petitioner(s) versus Saleha Tabassum W/o Moh. Tahsin Aslam Aged About 32 Years R/o Qt. No. B-291, N T P C Colony, S E C L, Gevra Projector , Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Lahrey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. C.P. Lahrey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 98/2015 and pleased to held the complaint of the respondent herein as barred by limitation and further be pleased to call for the records of the Courts below, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the marriage of respondent with the petitioner was solemnized on 16.06.2005, according to Mohammedan Law customs. After the marriage, the petitioner and his relatives allegedly subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, and demanded a car as dowry. Due to this cruelty, she left her matrimonial home and started living separately. The respondent further stated that her family members were also subjected to physical assault by the petitioner's family due to their non-fulfillment of dowry demands. As a result, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home and was taken to her parental home by her father, where she has been living separately since then. The respondent also stated that her husband failed to maintain her, and she has no independent source of income to support herself and her daughter. Her husband allegedly earns a handsome income of Rs. 30,000/- per month from his shop, and her father-in-law earns Rs. 40,000/- per month from his motor garage. 4. After receiving notice from the trial court, the petitioner filed a reply to the application and raised a preliminary objection, denying 3 the respondent's contentions except for the admitted facts. The petitioner argued that the application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘the Act of 2005’) is barred by limitation, as it should have been filed within three years of separation, but was filed after three years. Therefore, the petitioner argued that the application should be rejected, and the complaint should also be rejected. The trial court registered the complaint/application filed by the respondent as Criminal Case No. 77/2012. After considering the petitioner's objections and hearing arguments from both parties, the trial court rejected the petitioner's objections on 26.06.2014, on the grounds that the respondent's application was within the limitation period. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision against the order dated 26.06. 2014, before the Court of Additional Session Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). The revisional court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on 05.04.2018, in Criminal Revision No. 98/2016, affirming the order dated June 26, 2014, passed by the trial court. The petitioner has preferred this petition, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.04.2018, passed by the revisional court, challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his file is not traceable, hence he prays for an adjournment. 4 7. Considering the fact that the matter was came up before the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court for the first time on 18.06.2018, but learned counsel for the petitioner had not appeared, hence the same was dismissed for want of prosecution, thereafter restoration application was moved, the same was allowed and the matter has been restored to its original number. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned on one count or the other, and further considering the fact that no interim order has been passed till date. As such, I do not find any good ground for interference in the matter. 8. In view of the above, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil