1 2025:CGHC:51106-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1125 of 2024 Sunil Kotadia S/o Late Jeevanchand Ji Kotadia Aged About 42 Years R/o Kotadia Jewelers, Kamthi Line Rajnandgoan (C.G.) Mo.No. 9993333330 Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Priya Kankaria D/o Prakash Kankaria Aged About 40 Years R/o Kankaria Niwas, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Mo. No. 9826666669 2 - Veer Kotadia S/o Sunil Kotadia Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Priya Kankaria, R/o Kankaria Niwas, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Mo. No. 9826666669 Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 14/10/2025 1. This CRMP under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the entire proceedings arising RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.10.14 18:36:05 +0530 2 out of a complaint under Section 12, read with Sections 19(1)(f), 19(2), 19(3), 20(3), 21(d), 22(3), and 23(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 10/2024, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 27.01.2008 and out of the wedlock a son, Veer, was born on 28.03.2012. On account of matrimonial discord, both parties filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 05.05.2023 before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, wherein it was agreed that after the decree of divorce no party would raise any claim against the other. The Family Court, Rajnandgaon, accordingly passed a decree of divorce on 13.06.2023. Despite the mutual settlement and decree of divorce, after about eight months i.e. on 13.02.2024, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 12 read with Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned JMFC, Rajnandgaon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the mutual agreement between the parties and the decree of divorce, respondent No.1 has lodged a complaint of domestic violence against the petitioner, which is a clear abuse of process of law. He would point out that from the date of marriage in 2008 till the passing of the decree of divorce in 2023, respondent No.1 had never lodged any complaint alleging domestic violence, and the present complaint has been filed for the first time after about 15 years of marriage. He 3 would further submit that the parties have been living separately since 17.02.2022 and, in view of the decree of divorce dated 13.06.2023, no domestic relationship survives between them. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10/2024 titled “Priya Kankaria & another Vs. Sunil Kotadia” pending before the Court of JMFC, Rajnandgaon, amounts to nothing but an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhupendra Singh Sambyal v. Ruchi Jamwal [SLP (Crl.) No. 3023/2024, decided on 04.03.2025]. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petition filed by the petitioner for quashment is not sustainable. It is contended that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation enacted to provide rights and reliefs to an aggrieved woman, and the filing of a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, post-divorce, does not automatically amount to abuse of process. It is further urged that the absence of earlier complaints during subsistence of marriage does not, by itself, render the present proceedings untenable. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the petitioner may not be accepted and the proceedings in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10/2024 be permitted to continue in accordance with law. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. From the facts brought on record, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 27.01.2008 and out of the wedlock a son was born. It is also undisputed that on account of 4 matrimonial discord both parties approached the Family Court under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and, in terms of mutual settlement, a decree of divorce was granted on 13.06.2023. The material also reflects that subsequent to the decree of divorce, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on 13.02.2024. 7. The admitted factual matrix clearly shows that the parties have been living separately since 17.02.2022 and that their marriage stood dissolved by mutual consent on 13.06.2023. Once the decree of divorce was passed and the relationship of husband and wife came to an end, the condition precedent of a “domestic relationship” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005 ceased to exist between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 8. In such circumstances, initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act nearly eight months after the decree of divorce, and for the first time after about 15 years of marriage, prima facie appears inconsistent with the spirit and object of the Act. Continuation of such proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment of the petitioner and cannot be justified. 9. Having regard to the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint instituted by respondent No.1 and the consequential proceedings in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 10/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, cannot be permitted to continue, as the same would amount to abuse of process of Court and would not subserve the ends of justice. 5 10. Accordingly, this CRMP is allowed. The entire proceedings arising out of the complaint under Section 12 read with Sections 19(1)(f), 19(2), 19(3), 20(3), 21(d), 22(3), and 23(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 10/2024, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), are hereby quashed. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the allegations. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Amardeep