1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRR No. 780 of 2013

1. Digvijay Singh Verma (Madhariya) And Ors. S/o. Yashwant

Verma, Aged About 28 Years.

2. Smt. Mayna Verma (Madharaiya) W/o. Yashwant Verma

(Madhariya) Aged About 55 Years.

3. Smt. Revati Verma (Madhariya) W/o. Yashwant Verma

(Madhariya) Aged About 50 Years.

4. Yashwant Verma (Madhariya) S/o . Motilal Verma (Madhariya)

Aged About 60 Years.

5. Ku.Varsha (Madhariya) W/o. Yashwant Verma (Madhariya)

Aged About 32 Years.

All are resident of Bazar Chowk, Utai, Police Station Utai,

District Durg (C.G.)

---- Applicants

Versus

Smt.Hemlata Verma (Madhariya) W/o . Shri Digvijay Singh

Verma (Madhariya) Aged About 24 Years R/o. Through Shri

Kaushal Prasad Verma, Shubhash Nagar, Milan Chowk, P.S.

Durg (C.G.)

---- Respondent

For Applicants:

Shri N.S. Dhurandhar, Advocate.

For Respondent.

Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board By

28/08/2015

(1)

Respondent/complainant herein preferred an application under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 (Henceforth ‘Act, 2005’) stating inter alia that she is duly married

wife of Digvijay Singh Verma, applicant No.1 herein; and applicant

Nos. 2 & 3 are her mother-in-laws, applicant No. 4 is father-in-law &

applicant No. 5 is sister-in-law, who mal-treated her on 10.08.2012

2

and made an attempt to strangulate her; and the applicant No. 1-

Digvijay Singh had already married with Santoshi Verma and,

therefore, under the provisions of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the

Act, 2005, a protective order may be passed in her favour.

(2)

The present applicants did not file any return/written statement

to the said application.

(3)

The respondent/complainant examined herself as PW-1 and

her mother Dulari Verma as (PW-2) and also exhibited three

documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to P-3 in support of her case.

(4)

The trial Magistrate, by its order dated 06.07.2013, rejected the

application filed by respondent herein finding that she has failed to

prove the domestic violence by the applicants herein within the

meaning of Section 3 of the Act, 2005.

(5)

Feeling aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order passed by the

trial Magistrate, respondent/wife herein preferred criminal appeal

under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 before the Court of Session.

(6)

The Court of Session, by impugned order dated 18.10.2003

allowed the appeal of the respondent herein and set aside the order

of the trial Court and restrained the applicants herein from repeating

domestic violence against the respondent and also granted Rs.

1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment caused by

applicants.

(7)

Questioning the said order, instant criminal revision petition

has been preferred by the applicants herein.

(8)

Mr. N.S. Dhurandhar, counsel for the applicants submits that

there is no evidence on record to prove the fact of domestic violence

within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. 2005 as in the

examination-in-chief respondent/complainant did not utter any order

3

with regard to domestic violence allegedly committed by the

applicants and no documents have been proved in accordance with

law particularly Exs. P-1 to P-3 as mere production and the marking of

the documents would not dispense with the prove of the documents.

He would further submit that the respondent/wife was required to

prove documents Exs. P-1 to P-3 in accordance with law; and since

the respondent has failed to prove the same in accordance with law,

therefore, no reliance can be placed in those documents. He would

also submit that the appellate court has committed illegaltiy in

allowing the appeal and reversing the well reasoned order of the trial

Magistrate and, therefore, revision deserves to be allowed by setting

aside the order impugned. He placed reliance upon the judgment of

the S