2025:HHC:9990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.543/2024. Date of Decision: 09th April, 2025. Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Meena Kumari ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petitioner was the respondent before the trial Court. The respondent before this Court had preferred a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as Act) for grant of a residence order. 2. The present petitioner had resisted the petition filed by the respondent on the ground that since the respondent herein had been granted maintenance allowance by Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the respondent was not entitled for any relief under the Act. 3. Evidence was led by both the parties. On an appraisal of the pleadings and evidence the trial Court had allowed the petition filed by the respondent and had held her entitled for relief of residence, return of “Istridhan” and grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. 4. The aforesaid judgment dated 01.09.2017 was assailed by the present petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:9990 Hamirpur. In the appeal, the First Appellate Court had modified the order passed by the trial Court to the extent that relief granted qua return of Istridhan was held not to be sustainable. The residence order and the compensation order passed by the trial Court was upheld. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. The sole contention raised on behalf of the present petitioner is that the petition filed, in the case at hand, before the learned trial Court was not maintainable, as admittedly, in the case at hand, parties are living separately since November 2009, hence, as per the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there arose no question of Domestic Violence, in the case at hand. 7. Section 2(a) of the Act reads as follows:- 2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent; 8. The relationship of husband and wife inter se the parties is not in dispute. Marriage between the two was solemnized on 06.07.1991 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Therefore, in terms of the Act, there exists a domestic relationship inter se the parties. Besides the aforesaid, under the Act, domestic violence incudes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal & domestic abuse and economic abuse. Section 17 of the Act grants an aggrieved woman right to live in the “shared 3 2025:HHC:9990 household”. Section 19(1)(f) of the Act provides that the Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodating for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared household. The residence order, which the Court was competent to pass, in the case at hand, was based on the cross-examination of the respondent, who had appeared as RW3 before the trial Court. In his cross-examination he had admitted that the present respondent was in dire necessity of a residential house to stay. He further stated that he was ready and willing to provide residential/rented accommodation to the respondent. 9. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re- weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- 4 2025:HHC:9990 “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 10. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. No case for interference on the aforesaid grounds has been made out. 10. In view of above terms, I see no infirmity in the order passed by the Courts below and therefore, the present petition same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 09th April, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)