1 2025:CGHC:29192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1579 of 2019 Fulkunwar W/o Milapdas Aged About 51 Years R/o Agrasen Bhawan, Police Station - Kharsiya Tahsil And District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Milap Das S/o Balram Aged About 75 Years R/o Village - Patrapali, Police Station - Chakradharnagar, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vineed Kumar Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-a-side the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) in Criminal PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:06 +0530 2 Appeal No. 96/2018 (Annexure A-1) in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the trial court seeking monetary relief and compensation from the non-applicant, including Rs. 2,40,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 60,000/- for stridhan, Rs. 40,000/- for mental and physical cruelty, Rs. 5,000/- for residential needs, and Rs. 12,000/- per month for livelihood. She alleged that they were married in 1988 as per Hindu customs and that after some time, the non-applicant subjected her to continuous mental and physical cruelty, forcing her to live separately. Despite repeated efforts for reconciliation, the cruelty continued and the non- applicant failed to maintain her. In response, the non-applicant denied the marriage and alleged that the applicant was not his legally wedded wife, relying on an earlier judgment in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. case where the trial court and High Court had made similar observations. After recording evidence, the trial court partly allowed the application and awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the applicant by order dated 31.05.2018. Aggrieved by this, the non-applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 96/2018 before the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, which was allowed, and the trial court’s order was set aside vide order dated 16.05.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court is arbitrary, 3 illegal, and contrary to law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The appellate court failed to properly appreciate the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which operate independently and cannot be overridden by findings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as both have distinct legal criteria and are to be decided on their own merits. Despite the trial court’s finding that the applicant and non-applicant lived together as husband and wife, the appellate court erroneously rejected the applicant’s claim under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Furthermore, the appellate court failed to consider the broad definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act, which includes physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse. The court wrongly held that the absence of any formal complaint or report before an authority was sufficient to deny relief, whereas the Act does not make such reporting a mandatory prerequisite. The facts and evidence presented clearly indicate a violation of Section 3 by the non- applicant, and the appellate court’s failure to recognize this renders its judgment unsustainable in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/wife had filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the JMFC seeking monetary relief and compensation. The trial court partly allowed her application and awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance 4 along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by this, the non- applicant/husband filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, which after due consideration of the evidence and legal provisions, set aside the trial Court’s order, holding that the applicant failed to establish a legally valid marriage and the necessary grounds for relief under the Act. Challenging this, the applicant approached this Court by way of a revision petition. However, this Court, upon examining the record and findings of the Sessions Court, found no illegality or perversity in the appellate order. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Session Court, I am of the view that the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Raigarh has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti