1 2025:CGHC:20530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 06.02.2025 Order Delivered on 05.05.2025 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1119 of 2022 1 - Shailesh Jaikab S/o Late M.C. Jaikab Aged About 40 Years R/o Mission Compound Jarhabhata Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur Dis- trict,Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh) 2 - Smt. Pushpa Jaikab Wd/o Late M.C. Jaikab Aged About 74 Years R/o Mission Compound Jarhabhata Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur District,Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh) 3 - Smt. Suchita Roy D/o M.C. Jaikab Aged About 40 Years R/o Mis- sion Compound Jarhabhata Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur District Bilaspur,(Chhattisgarh) 4 - Shalaj Jaikab S/o Late M.C. Jaikab Aged About 33 Years R/o Mis- sion Compound Jarhabhata Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioners versus Smt. Mallika Bal W/o Shailesh Jaikab Aged About 36 Years R/o Mis- sion Compound Jarhabhatha Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr.T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Yudhveer Singh, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge CAV Order 1. The instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners, for appropriate clarification in order dated 2 21.01.2020 passed in CRR No. 594 of 2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. They got married in the year 2000 and subsequently started living together. In the year 2004 the wife/respondent alleged that she is being treated with cruelty and is under dowry pressure. Moreover the petitioner has beaten her driven out of her matrimonial home. However, some compromised took place and the petitioner and respondent again started living together but on 12.07.2011 the respondent wife again made an allegation that the petitioner tried to ablaze her alive. Since then they are living separately. Thereafter, she filed a complaint before the JMFC on 20.07.2011 for grant of various reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was rejected vide order dated 27.11.2013. Against the order dated 27.11.2013 the respondent/ wife filed an appeal before the learned Fifth Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh which too got dismissed by the appellate court on merits vide order dated 17.07.2013. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Fifth Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh respondent/ wife filed a revision before this court, and this court passed the order in favor of the respondent/wife stating that petitioner is prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence against the respondent/wife and also ordered that the petitioner shall provide the respondent with a place of residence in the same shared household where she had been residing earlier and the petitioner shall keep away from the place of residence so provided to the respondent. Upon which the petitioner filed leave to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for clarification of order 3 dated 21.01.2020 but it was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek appropriate clarification before the High Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.K. Jha most humbly submits that the petitioner has filed leave to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for clarification of order dated 21.01.2020. However, the fact is that the place of residence where petitioner is living at present is not his own or titled property therefore, ordering to facilitate a separate accommodation in the same premises at the existing fact of separation between petitioner and respondent is not possible. Hence he prays for allowing the instant petition and kindly clarify the order passed by this Court in CRR No. 594 of 2014 in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that as per provisions of Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code, this court cannot alter judgment after the same has been signed except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. The high court has no jurisdiction under Section 482 to alter the earlier judgment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record as well as the impugned orders with utmost circumspection. 6. It is pertinent that the main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to get a clarification regarding the order passed by this court in CRR No. 594 of 2014 which states as under:- 14. After overall consideration of the facts and circumstances and 4 the evidence of the case, I am of this view that the learned JMFC and the learned Appellate Court both have passed erroneous orders which are against the provisions of law, incorrect and improper. Therefore, these orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order and the order of the JMFC both are set aside and it is ordered that the respondents are prohibited for committing any act of domestic violence against the applicant or aiding or abetting any such act or entering the place of employment of the applicant for such purposes. It is also ordered that the respondents shall provide the applicant with a place of residence in the same shared household where she had earlier resided, which shall be sufficient according to requirement and it is also directed that the respondents shall keep away from the place of residence so provided to the applicant. 7. Against the order of this Court, the petitioner has filed SLP (Cri.) No. 506/2022 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.01.2022 ordered as under:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to seek appropriate clarification before the High Court. Permission sought for is granted. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the afore-mentioned liberty. Pending application stands disposed of.” 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was regarding the court has ordered the petitioner to provide the applicant with a place of residence in the same shared household where she had earlier resided, but when the order of divorce was already passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur before the order passed in CRR No. 594/2014. However, it is pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme Corut has 5 already decided the special leave petition filed by the petitioner, however, it is an admitted fact that the decree of divorce has been passed by the competent court by and between the parties. Therefore a clarification is needed/requested. Thus clarifying as under:- (1) the petitioner shall provide the applicant with a place of residence in the same shared household where she had earlier resided, which shall be sufficient according to requirement and it is also directed that the respondents shall keep away from the place of residence so provided to the applicant. or (2) The petitioner shall provide the applicant with a place of residence that is at least 2 BHK in the same locality which shall be sufficient according to requirement of the respondent at the expenses of petitioner only and it is also directed that the petitioner shall keep away from the place of residence which shall be provided by him to the respondent. 9. With the aforesaid clarification, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge