1 2026:CGHC:2460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 171 of 2021 Bhimesh Kumar Deshmukh S/o Late Jageshwar Prasad Aged About 42 Years R/o Sankra (J), P.S. Balod, Distt. Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Bhimesh Kumar Deshmukh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chandrakhuri, P.S. Pulgaon, Tahsil And Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Avinash Chand. Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the and examine the record of the case of the learned Courts Below for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the orders passed by them and further be RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 pleased allow the instant Revision and dismiss the application of the respondent by setting-aside the impugned order dated 12- 02-2021 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized on 12.05.1999 at Durg in accordance with customary rites, out of which wedlock three sons were born. Alleging acts of domestic violence, cruelty, and desertion, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gunderdehi, District Balod, stating that after 3–4 years of marriage the applicant began harassing her on allegations of chastity and that on 07.05.2015 she was assaulted and forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home, pursuant to which the complaint was lodged on 13.05.2015. The applicant filed his reply denying all allegations and contending that the respondent left the matrimonial home on her own accord without any just cause and was negligent towards the children, and sought dismissal of the complaint. Upon recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court, by order dated 02.04.2019, partly allowed the complaint, restrained the applicant from harassing the respondent, and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance and house rent. 3 Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, which was dismissed by order dated 12.02.2021 after due consideration, and hence the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Courts below have committed grave errors of law and fact while passing the impugned orders, rendering the same liable to be set aside. It is contended that the Courts below have selectively relied upon the evidence adduced by the complainant and have failed to properly consider the evidence of the non-applicant/applicant, particularly inasmuch as there is no medical evidence on record to substantiate the allegation of physical assault, and undue reliance has been placed upon statements made before the Welfare Officer during conciliation proceedings. It is further submitted that the evidence on record is wholly insufficient to establish cruelty or harassment within the meaning of the Act of 2005, as minor day- to-day disputes cannot be elevated to the status of domestic violence. He also submits that during conciliation proceedings a compromise had taken place between the parties, thereby condoning all prior acts, yet the same incidents have been erroneously relied upon to hold the applicant guilty of harassment. It is further urged that the complainant failed to place any material regarding the income of the applicant, who is merely a labourer at a fair price shop earning about Rs.3,000/- per month and is already paying Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance under 4 Section 125 Cr.P.C., and that awarding an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance and house rent amounts to impermissible double maintenance and is beyond the financial capacity of the applicant. It is submitted that the object of the Act is not to render the non-applicant destitute or expose him to incarceration for non-payment, and since the learned Courts below have failed to assess the applicant’s actual income and have misappreciated the evidence on record, the impugned orders are perverse, arbitrary, and deserve to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Courts concerned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record and have passed the impugned orders strictly in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties and considering the allegations of domestic violence, cruelty, and desertion, has correctly exercised its jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by partly allowing the complaint, granting protection to the respondent, and awarding 5 reasonable maintenance and house rent keeping in view her needs and the obligations of the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge, Balod, upon reappraisal of the entire material in appeal, has rightly affirmed the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by a reasoned order dated 12.02.2021. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court 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 certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar