Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Rekha Sahu vs Smt. Anadita Sahu on 12 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 135 of 2020
1. Smt. Rekha Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Sahu Aged
About 55 Years R/o Kharun Vihar Colony, House No.
201/3, Fafadih, Police Station Ganj, Raipur District Raipur
CG
2. Smt. Pratibha Sahu W/o Shri Rajeshwar Sahu Aged About
40 Years R/o I-4, Engineering College Campus, Risdi
Korba, Police Station And District Korba Chhattisgarh
3. Smt. Priti Sahu wife of Shri Suraj Sahu City Singh Hospital,
Akaltara Rakde Road, distt. Janjgir Champa (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Anadita Sahu W/o Shri Praveen Kumar Sahu Aged
About 27 Years R/o House No. L. I. G. C. 19 S 3 Gali No.
1, Professor Colony, Police Station Purani Basti Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Priti Sahu W/o Shri Suraj Sahu Aged About 35 Years
R/o Near City Singh Hospital, Akaltalra, Rakde Road,
District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioners : Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Adv.
For respondent : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Adv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order on Board
12-10-2022
1. The petitioners have filed present petition under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in brevity 'Cr.P.C.')
against the order dated 13-12-2019 passed by the Special/Upper
Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG) in Criminal Revision NO. 725/2019
upholding the order dated 16-10-2019 passed by the Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Raipur whereby application filed by the
petitioners under Section 12 and 2(b) and proviso to Section 19(1)
(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(in short 'the Act, 2005') has been rejected.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage of respondent
was solemnized with Pravin Kumar Sahu, who is son of petitioner
No. 1 and brother of petitioners No. 2 and 3. The respondent was
subjected to violence on various counts by her husband, father-in-
law and by petitioners also. They compelled the respondent to
leave her matrimonial house. Therefore, since October, 2017 she is
residing in her parental home. The respondent filed an application
against her husband, father-in-law and petitioner under Section 12
of the Act, 2005 seeking relief under Section 19 and 20 of the Act,
2005, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 322/2019
and is pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur.
The petitioners filed an application under Section 12, 2(b) and
proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, 2005 for deleting their names
from the petition filed by the respondent before learned trial Court,
which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 16-10-
2019 and also by the revisional Court vide impugned order dated
13-12-2019. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioner No. 1 is mother-in-law and petitioner No. 2 and 3 are
sisters-in-law of respondent/complainant. They are not adult man,
hence, they cannot be impleaded as respondent in the petition filed
under the Act, 2005. Therefore, their names are required to be
deleted from the petition filed by the respondent/ complainant, but
these legal aspects have not been considered by both the Courts
below. Hence, the order impugned passed by both the Courts
below are bad in law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the
impugned order. It is further submitted that in case of Sandhya
Manoj Wankhade -v- Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade [(2011) 3 SCC
650], Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that intention of
the legislature was not so that female relatives of husband or male
partner be kept outside from the domain of the Act, 2005. Hence,
female relatives are also covered in the definition of respondent
under Section 2(q) of the Act, 2005. Therefore, the order impugned
does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
6. In the case of Hiral P. Harsora and others -v- Kusum
Narottamdas Harsora [(2016) 10 SCC 165, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered the issue whether the application under the
Act, 2005 may be filed against the female relatives of adult male
person. In aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down
Section 2(q) along with its proviso of the Act, 2005 and held in para
50 as under :-
"50. We, therefore, set aside the impugned
judgment of the Bombay High Court and
declare that the words "adult male" in Section
2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since
these words do not square with Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. Consequently, the
proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose,
also stands deleted. We may only add that the
impugned judgment has ultimately held, in
para 27, that the two complaints of 2010, in
which the three female respondents were
discharged finally, were purported to be
revived, despite there being no prayer in Writ
Petition No. 300 of 2013 for the same. ....."
7. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in aforesaid case, it is apparent that remedy under the Act,
2005 is available even against the female members and also
against non-adult. Hence, considering the aforesaid law laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the objection raised by the petitioners is
not sustainable and, therefore, both the Courts below have not
committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.
8. While arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioners
would also submit that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are sisters-in-law of
respondent/ complainant and after marriage, they are residing in
different places along with their husbands and they are doing job,
which clearly shows that they have been arraigned as party
respondent only to harass them, therefore, at least, against
petitioners No. 2 and 3, the application filed by the respondent/
complainant may be quashed.
9. So far as aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is concerned, these grounds have not been raised in their
application filed by them before learned Court below, therefore, it
cannot be considered directly by this Court. If the petitioners want,
they may raise aforesaid ground before learned trial Court.
10. In view of above consideration and observation made by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hiral P. Harsora (supra), I do
not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by
both the Courts below.
11. Therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(NK Chandravanshi)
Judge
Pathak/-
