IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.155 of 2024 Reserved on:-06.08.2025 Decided on 19th August, 2025 Chandrawati and another …Petitioners Versus Man Singh …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Devendeer K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is therefore respectfully prayer that in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove this petition may kindly be allowed the judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed in criminal appeal number 65/2023/2018 titled as Chandrawati and another versus Man Singh and order dated 23.05.2018 passed in application number 264/2013 titled as Chandrawati and other versus Man Singh may kindly be set aside to the extent of denying amount of maintenance to petitioner number 1, rent of accommodation and enhanced rate of maintenance to the petitioner No.2 and the application under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 be allowed as per prayer clause the interest of justice.” 2 2. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 23.05.2008, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.4, Mandi, H.P., dated 23.05.2018 in an application filed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In terms of the impugned order, learned Court held that as both the parties admitted that they were in a live in relationship for five years and as there was no doubt that the petitioner No.1 herein was not in a domestic relationship with the respondent and further as the petitioner No.1 herein alleged that as respondent was suffering from HIV without conclusive proof and when she entered into relationship with the respondent, she was young and mature and could have understood its result, she can’t take benefit of being in relationship with a married man under the garb of the Domestic Violence Act and as she herself did not want to cohabit with respondent and had left the company of the respondent voluntarily, no maintenance were to be granted to her. Learned Court, however awarded maintenance to the minor child. 3. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned Court below was disposed of by the 3 learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 01.12.2023, in terms whereof, the compensation awarded to the minor child was ordered from the date of application before the learned Trial Court and till he attained the age of majority, but no order was passed in favour of petitioner No.1 qua her prayer of maintenance. 4. Respondent despite service did not appear and, therefore, he has been proceeded against ex parte. 5. In terms of the impugned order, the minor child has been awarded maintenance @Rs.6,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasons culled out in the impugned order by the learned Court below denying maintenance to petitioner No.1 are not justified in the eyes of law. He submitted that the petitioner No.1 was entitled to maintenance from the respondent, as there was a domestic relationship between the parties and this extremely important aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned Court below. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned order be modified by ordering the respondent to pay maintenance to petitioner No.1 also. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 8. It is evident from the orders under challenge that basically what weighed with both the learned Courts below while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner lady for grant of maintenance was that as she was in a live in relationship with the respondent, the aggrieved person cannot take benefit of being in relationship with a major man under the garb of Domestic Violence Act. Though, other reasons have also been spelled out, that is to say that she herself was not intending to cohabit with the respondent, but the moot issue to be determined by this Court is as to whether the findings returned by the learned Courts below that a lady in live in relationship is not entitled for maintenance are sustainable in the eyes of law or not. 9. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.(S) 1656/2015, titled Lalita Toppo versus The State of Jharkhand and another held that under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 5 Act, 2005 the victim i.e. estranged wife or live in partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely, to a shared household also. 10. Now incidentally, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, maintenance is provided for. Thus obviously, when Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that a live in partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure namely, it was a shared household also, this means that under the Domestic Violence Act a live in partner can also claim maintenance if she can satisfy the Court on merit. Therefore, rejecting the claim of the lady simply on the ground that because she is a live in partner, thus, she is not entitled for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Of course, whether or not in a particular case, the lady can claim maintenance has to be decided by the Court in the context of the facts of the case as well the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements including 6 Indra Sarma versus V.K.V. Sarma 2013(15) SCC 755, but as already observed hereinabove, rejection of the claim for maintenance, simplicitor on the ground that a lady in a live-in- relationship is not entitled for the same is not sustainable in law. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge to decide the appeal afresh on this point by returning reasoned findings as to whether in the facts of the case the petitioner lady is entitled for the grant of maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, or not and if yes, then to what extent. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 19, 2025 (Vinod)