2025:HHC:36327 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 617 of 2024 Decided on: 30.10.2025 Smt. Kusum Bala … Petitioner Versus Sh. Rajeev Pathania and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sumesh Raj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Appellate Court dated 05.10.2024, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed and the order passed by learned Trial Court dated 17.12.2015, in an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in favour of the present petitioner was set aside. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 17.12.2015 as well as the subsequent order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment under challenge is not sustainable in law. Record 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:36327 demonstrates that in the proceedings before learned ACJM, Nurpur, as no evidence was led by the respondents therein despite reasonable opportunities granted , the right of the respondents to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 03.06.2015. Now incidentally, this order in terms whereof the evidence of the respondents was closed, was not challenged by the respondents herein before the learned Trial Court. The application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was heard on merit and decided on 17.12.2015. The final adjudication was more than six months after the evidence of the respondents was closed, yet, in appeal, the order passed by learned Trial Court, has been interfered with by the learned Appellate Court by holding that as the Court was satisfied that respondent No. 1 could not appear before the Court to examine himself on account of the reason that he was not granted leave by his employer to appear before the Court, said respondent was entitled to be granted one more opportunity to lead evidence. Learned Appellate Court further went on to hold that this was necessary in light of the fact that the compensation awarded was on the higher side. 3. This Court fails to understand that in the absence of there being any material on record placed by respondent No. 1 to demonstrate that indeed he was denied leave by his employer to appear as a witness in the Court, from where this conclusion was 3 2025:HHC:36327 arrived at by learned Appellate Court that respondent No.1-husband could not lead evidence because he was not granted leave by his employer. Not only this, the findings returned by learned Appellate Court that only three opportunities were granted to the respondents to lead evidence, are contrary to the record as more than three opportunities were given. Besides this, even if it is assumed that only three opportunities have been granted to the respondents to lead evidence, then also, if a party fails to avail three opportunities to lead evidence, which otherwise are reasonable opportunities, there was occasion to learned Appellate Court to have had shown indulgence in the facts of the case where the respondents themselves were callous and careless in leading evidence. Learned Appellate Court has also erred in not appreciating that the order, in terms whereof the evidence of the respondents was closed, was never challenged by the respondents and no cogent explanation was given in the appeal as to why this order was not challenged by the respondents if they really were aggrieved by the same. As far as the findings returned by learned Appellate Court that the compensation is on the higher side, in the absence of there being any evidence led by the respondents to the contrary that what was being demanded by the petitioner, she was not entitled thereto, these findings obviously are based on conjectures and surmises and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4 2025:HHC:36327 4. Accordingly in the light of above discussion, this petition is allowed. Judgment passed by learned Appellate Court, dated 05.10.2024, is set aside and order passed by learned Trial Court dated 17.12.2015 is upheld. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 30, 2025 (narender)