2025:UHC:5039 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 355 of 2025 17 June, 2025 Laxman Singh Maratha ……...Revisionist Versus Pooja Maratha and Others --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. D S Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Present criminal revision is filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2024 ‘Smt. Pooja Maratha and Others Vs. Laxman Singh Maratha’, whereby learned Sessions Judge, District Uttarkashi has allowed the application of respondent/wife under Section 18, 19 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the D.V. Act’) and to refrain the revisionist from harassing the respondent no.1/opposite party physically, mentally or emotionally as well as the impugned order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi in Misc. Criminal Case No. 196 of 2023, whereby the application moved by the respondents was partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the 2025:UHC:5039 2 present revision are that the marriage between the revisionist/husband and respondent no.1/wife was solemnized on 10.11.2008 as per Hindu rites; that, out of the said wedlock two daughters were born; that, the respondent/wife alleged that the revisionist and his family members (mother and brother) subjected her to physical and mental harassment; that, respondent no.1/wife also accused the husband of being involved in an extra-marital affair; that, in August 2023, the husband allegedly threatened the wife and forcibly evicted her from the matrimonial home, warning her not to return or face dire consequences. Consequently, she started residing in a rented accommodation; that, the respondent no.1/wife filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 196 of 2023 under Sections 18, 19, and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act; that, the husband filed a written statement after notice was served; that, learned trial court partly allowed the application filed by respondent no.1/wife; that, aggrieved by the trial court’s order, the respondent no.1/wife filed Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2019 in the Sessions Court, Uttarkashi; that, learned Sessions Judge modified the trial court’s order and directed the husband not to commit any form of cruelty i.e. physical, mental, or emotional against the respondent no.1/wife and also ordered the revisionist/husband to make available the ancestral house to the respondent no.1/wife within 30 days without any obstruction and if the house at Josiyada cannot be provided, the revisionist/husband must pay ₹10,000 per month to 2025:UHC:5039 3 the wife in lieu of accommodation. The revisionist/husband has challenged the impugned judgments and orders by filing the present revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material available on the record. 4. Learned trial court by the impugned judgment and order passed under Section 18 of the D.V. Act has directed the revisionist not to create any sort of physical mental or emotional curtly to the respondent/wife. In appeal preferred by the respondent/wife, the Appellate Court allowed the same and further directed the revisionist to make available a residential house in Josiyada for the stay of respondent/her wife and her children or `10,000/- per month in case the house is not available. 5. It has come to light that the parties to the marriage owned a two-storeyed residential house in Josiyada with two rooms on each floor. It is an admitted fact that the revisionist/husband and respondent no.1/wife were married on 10–11 February 2008. However, on 24 August 2004, the respondent/wife along with her two children was forcibly ousted from the shared household and compelled to live in a rented premises. By ousting the wife and children from the shared household, the revisionist/husband not only deprived them of shelter but also subjected them to humiliation and emotional trauma. Such conduct falls squarely within the ambit of cruelty and domestic violence under the Act. 2025:UHC:5039 4 6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the trial court passed the order under Section 18 of the D.V. Act. In appeal also, the order was affirmed with the further modification of granting permission to the respondent/wife to stay in the ancestral house of the revisionist and/or till the accommodation is made available to respondents, the revisionist is directed to pay `10,000/- per month towards rent. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the judgments and orders passed by the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. There is no scope for interference. Accordingly, the present criminal revision preferred by the revisionist under Section 438/442 of the B.N.S. is found to be devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the threshold." 8. No order as to costs. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.06.2025 Mamta