1 2025:CGHC:51515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 419 of 2025 1 - Rameshwar Prasad Upadhyay S/o Damarudhar Upadhya Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dabhara, Tahsil Dabhara, Distt. Sakti ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ankita Upadhyay W/o Rameshwar Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 38 Years R/o Manishankar Pandey, Shankar Nagar Dhangardeepa, Thana City Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mamta Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 15/10/2025 1. The present criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 85/2024, whereby the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Criminal MJC No. 77/2018 is affirmed. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2013, and out of their wedlock one daughter has been born. On 16.02.2018 the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.12.19 17:07:50 +0530 2 the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’) with the averment that from the date of their engagement on 26.04.2013, harassment were started by her husband and his family members for one or other reason even with respect to the expenses incurred during the marriage ceremony, she was being harassed for dowry articles and ornaments are of sub-standard quality. Her mother-in-law and other family members have regularly taunted her and raised domestic quarrel regularly. Her husband started threatening that he will divorced her. She narrated various incidents of alleged harassment given by the husband and his family members to the complainant and ultimately she filed an application before the learned trial Court for protection order and return of her streedhan as per the list of Rs. 4,42,482/-, Rs. 45,00,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and also claimed Rs. 40,000/- per month for maintenance and nurture for herself and her daughter. 3. The application filed by the complainant was replied by the respondent and his family members and denied the allegation with the pleading that that it is the complainant who does not want to live with her husband at Dhabra and she wanted to live at Raigarh. Since she comes from Raigarh she does not want to live at a small place like Dabhra. Despite convincing by her husband that she has to live with him at his place of service but the complainant did not convinced the family members of the complainant taken her back to Raigarh along with all her ornaments and other articles. The complainant threatened him to rope him in a false case. The complainant was employee as Assistant Professor at City College, Raigarh having sufficient source of her income, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief and her application is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. The learned trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and the complainant examined herself as PW-1, Smt. Usha Tiwari as PW-2 and Smt. Verhsa Tiwari as PW-3. 5. The non-applicants have examined Rameshwar Upadhyay DW-1, Kiran Kumar Patel, DW-2 and relied upon the documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/36 which are the complaints, medical reports, of the non-applicants. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court partly allowed the application filed by the complainant and granted Rs.10 lakhs as one time amount in favour of the complainant for her food, clothing, medical expenses and other household expenses, it is also ordered that the amount of Rs. 13,000/- per month granted to the respondent as interim monetary relief, is to be adjusted against the total awarded amount, it is also ordered that in future if the complainant is required any residence for herself or for their daughter, the non-applicant No.1 Rameshwar Upadhayay shall bear the entire expenses of their residence and he shall not commit any offence of domestic violence against the complainant. 7. The order dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned trial Court was challenged by the petitioner in the appeal before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh. After hearing the parties the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 06.03.2012, which is under challenge in the present petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without there being any documentary evidence led by the complainant the learned trial Court has granted Rs. 10 lakh in favour of the complainant which is erroneous. The complainant has admitted in Para -42 of her cross- examination that even if her husband is willing to take her back, she is not willing to go with him. She voluntarily stated that till date her husband has not tried to take her back, therefore, she is not willing to go with him. In para -43 4 she admitted that her husband had tried to take her back and made efforts but she denied to go with him. Though she further stated that the Raigarh Court had also tried to reconciliation between them and she also had gone to Dabhra to her husband had not shown any interest. He would further submits she is the teacher at Karmel School at Raigarh since 2020 and earing Rs. 15,000/- per month. She also admitted that she could do her service at private schol at Dabhra and she could appear in competitive examination while residing at her nonmaterial house. 9. In para-55 she further stated that she is not willing to reside with her husband she is not willing to reside at Dabhra and if her husband is willing to reside at Dabhra in a separate and rented house then also she is not willing to go with him. PW-2 Usha Tiwari have stated in Para-14 of her cross-examination that she did not know about the relations between the complainant and her husband and the complainant has also not stated anything about the same. Therefore, the complainant could not establish by leading cogent evidence that she is entitled for relief against the petitioner and her application is liable to be dismissed yet an exorbitant amount has been awarded against the petitioner which is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned order and submits that looking to the present cost of living and nurture of the daughter of the parties, the the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court has rightly passed the order granting Rs. 10 lakhs to the complainant for their maintenance as well as nurture of the daughter in which there is no infirmity or irregularity and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court as well as appellate Court. 12. The main ground of challenge in the petition is that, without there being any documentary evidence as well as sufficient oral evidence, the learned trial Court granted Rs. 10 lakhs as monetary compensation under Section 20 of 5 the DV Act, which is not sustainable. It is also the ground of challenge that since the cruelty and domestic violence have not been proved against the petitioner, but the learned trial Court came in to conclusion that since the petitioner deprived the respondent from shared household and had not tried to keep her and their daughter with him and also has not tried to bring her back it amounts to cruelty under the domestic violence. 13. The definition of Domestic Violence is given in Section 2(g) of the DV Act, and it has been described that domestic violence has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. Section 3 of the DV Act provided that any act, omission or commission, or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence. Section 3 of the DV Act is reproduced below: “3. Definition of domestic violence. For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it- (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.” 14. The learned trial Court, while considering the domestic violence against the petitioner, held that although the mental and physical cruelty by any physical act is not established, however, the respondents’ averment that on 18.09.2017 she returned to Raigarh along with her daughter and thereafter, the petitioner had not contacted her till date, which remained unrebutted. Further, the averment of the respondent that she herself had gone to Dhabhra but the petitioner had tried to keep her and their daughter with him also remained unrebutted, and the petitioner has failed to provide them the shelter, and if the petitioner deprived the respondent of a shared household, it comes under the definition of domestic violence. The act of the petitioner is 6 duly covered under Section 3 (iv) of the DV Act, and has been considered by both the Courts below that the petitioner is guilty of committing domestic violence against the respondent. 15. With respect to the relief granted to the petitioner under the DV Act, the learned trial Court granted Rs. 10 lakh as monetary relief to the respondent on account of food, clothing, medical, domestic and other expenses under Section 20 of the DV Act. While considering the claim of the respondent the learned trial Court has considered that the amount claimed by the respondent is not supported by the documentary evidence and no bills or vouchers have been annexed in support of her claim, so that the actual amount can be calculated. In the absence of any documentary evidence or support with respect to the claim of the respondent, they refused to grant the claimed amount under the Stridhan and medical expenses. The learned trial Court has also considered that the respondent in her cross-examination admitted that she is working as a teacher at Karmel School, Raigarh, since July, 2020 and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, the petitioner is a lecturer at Government College, and on 09.10.2018, an order has been passed for monetary relief of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 3000/- for residential accommodation per month, which is regularly paying by the petitioner, considered that the respondent is entitled to monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act. The learned trial Court has also considered that since the respondent is having residential accommodation of her parent and therefore, no order with respect to residence has been passed, but looking to their daughters’ necessity and her education, the monetary relief of Rs. 10 lakhs has been granted to the respondent. It is also ordered that the interim relief granted to the respondent shall be adjusted to the total amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, awarded against the petitioner. It is further directed that in future, if the respondent or their daughter requires any residential accommodation or any 7 other expenses, the petitioner would bear all the expenses, and he shall not commit any domestic violence in future. 16. Keeping in view the provisions of Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act, the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse in the facts and evidence of the present case. The amount of Rs. 13,000/- granted to the respondent as an interim order is also directed for its adjustment against the total amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. Looking to the occupation of the petitioner, i.e. lecturer in Government College, the expected living standard of the parties, the present cost of living, the necessity of a growing girl, and present educational expenses, it cannot be said that the amount by the learned trial Court is excessive or arbitrary, that too without any consideration. The amount which has already been paid towards interim relief is liable to be adjusted against the total amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, and therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 17. The facts and considerations in the judgment by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of “P. Subramanyam, Nagireddypalle (v), Kadapa vs. N. Lakshmi Devi, Aravapalle(v), Kadapa”, AIR Online AP 768 and “Saktipada Chakraborty vs. Anima Chakraborty”, AIR Online 2023 Calcutta 224, are distinguishable from the facts and issue involved in the present case; therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner by the said judgment. In the present case, the act and conduct of the petitioner is found against the respondent, which comes under the domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act, and the learned trial Court has granted relief to the respondent, which cannot be said to be erroneous. The relief granted to the respondent is just and proper and based on due appreciation of the evidence available on record. 8 18. As a fallout, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok