1 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 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.12 10:09:22 +0530 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.